301 points! and could have done more

[nixiebunny]

Originally Posted by dodar

Actually it would be a better comparison to the 2nd half of a Championship Game.

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by dodar

All I can say to that is wow.

And I counter your wow with this. 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by nixiebunny

I think we all knew where the second match would have gone if it was played with defense. You weren't there, we were.

Video works pretty well.

[nixiebunny]

Have any of you watched the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds? It was filmed in Tucson AZ, where I live.

The relevant scene shows the nerds vs the jocks in a tug-of-war contest. The nerds all let go of the rope simultaneously, causing all the jocks to fall backwards over each other. The lead nerd then says calmly, "You win."

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

And I counter your wow with this. 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

I would argue that the 6v0 matches from 2010 are not even on the same page. Agreeing to play with no defense says "I bet we can fire our guns faster than yours" rather than "lets all shoot our guns in the same direction".

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

And I counter your wow with this. 6v0 is not an alien concept to FRC, and so what if both alliances in quals agree to play no defense to maximize ranking points for each alliance? There's even more incentive to do so if none of the teams are close to a picking position in the rankings.

That was what I said. And I would frown upon those teams doing that as well. If you feel like you deserve to be ranked higher, earn the points by being able to play through defense and get them. Being able to score through defense will get you picked alot easier then telling a team that you are better at trying to get teams to not play defense if you wont.

I was also still a student when the 6v0 happened in 2010, I did think what happened was cool but I never thought of it as THE high score and I still didnt like how those teams did that towards raising their ranking scores.

[Nathan Rossi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Here, watch the announcement yourself.

[TheOtherGuy]

Well, this is one of the more interesting threads on CD I never thought I'd read!

The match was exciting to watch as a spectator. Everyone around me was out of their seat. That match was nothing short of inspiring.

[seg9585]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

I don't understand the point of this avenue of discussion. I can't respond to this one.....If you can't see what we were trying to do then I can't help you.

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

That match was nothing short of inspiring.

Oh, you... that's not what this competition is all about!

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

I've given up on my astute grandmother's coopertitional GP definition because it gets twisted to support any argument.

I expect every alliance I am on or against to employ a strategy that they feel will give them the best chance t victory. This would be the professional thing to do, and if any alliance diverges from this the experience of being a participant is cheapened.

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?

Someone made a fantastic post earlier in the year and made the argument "We don't allow steroids in sports because it cheapens the result and competition adds meaning." If we let steroids back in baseball, both sides can run faster, hit more home runs and have higher scoring games. But the result is less genuine. Not playing defence to artificially inflate scores and then boast about the high scoring Arizona finals is on the same level in my opinion.

If blue decided their best chance at winning was pure offence then more power to them. But the posts to date don't lead me to believe this was the case.

I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by seg9585

I see what you're trying to do -- you're adding a Home Run Derby to World Series Game 7. Home Run Derbys are very exciting for the spectators.

I'd be fascinated to go to an event specifically designed to see how many legitimate points you can score in the game. Maybe as a scrimmage type thing.

I have been a FIRST mentor for 7 years and last year was the first time a team I've mentored made it into the Finals matches of regional elim (and won it) -- an experience I will never forget but something the team worked incredibly hard to achieve for many years while also getting lucky and having a strong alliance.

Some teams win a Regional every year and take it for granted, and I feel like an exhibition in Finals like this kind of makes a mockery out of the situation. I'm specifically talking about the fact that the "best" robots chose to sit there for 90% of the match while their teammates handled the ball rather than making any attempt to improve their chances of winning by playing the game.

We have a 117 OPR before going into the finals. I think that speaks for itself. Everyone was that could was playing defense on us then. Ask them...When you are on an alliance, you play what ever role helps your team and not your ego. Bottom line is, as Woodie and Dean say, its not about the robot, its about the people and the people here are all thrilled at what transpired.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?

Fun fact: the excellent reffing crew in AZ would have nothing to do with deliberate human player fouls as they were not within the intent of the rules. Game strategy (ie, agreed upon no defense) does not fall into this same category.

If you don't like the approach that was taken during this match, then neglect it from the "high scoring match" category when you analyze all of the regional data. I do not expect this to even be a notable (or even relevant) category among any teams with a good scouting team.

[Joshua Sicz]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

Well, this is one of the more interesting threads on CD I never thought I'd read!

The match was exciting to watch as a spectator. Everyone around me was out of their seat. That match was nothing short of inspiring.

I Agree with this.

I was the driver for team 2403 in the Finals of the AZ regional. I wanted to clarify some things.

The first first match of the finals we offered the same pack with the other team but they rejected it. So I was able to drive defensively. Once we showed that we can beat them we offered the same pack for them. This doesn't hurt either alliance because the objective was to see if can beat the challenge that hasn't been broken and we have already won the first so why not TRY for it.

For me it was fun because the score was behind me and I was on my toes to see if we have beaten the challenge. It is also fun to drive I also played all the matches so far with defense so it was exciting to see a change.

It was GP in the scene that we worked together to try to reach some no one else has done. AND we still were against each other for the winning of the regional.

If I have missed anything some one had for a question for me just ask.

Thanks,
Joshua Sicz

Project Manager for Plasma Robotics

[AmoryG]

I really don't see the problem here. The losing alliance said they felt they had nothing to lose, which at least means they didn't feel like they were less likely to win with the new strategy. The first one didn't work, so why not go for it? You can complain about the decision in hindsight, but looking at it from the teams' and sponsor's perspectives before the outcome was determined I can certainly understand why they did it.