301 points! and could have done more

[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.

[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.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I do not expect this to even be a notable (or even relevant) category among any teams with a good scouting team.

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 when things look bleak.

Maybe it is because I don't do fundraising or find sponsors for my team, but I would never agree to the bet. But, as long as all 6 teams agreed and weren't peer pressured into agreeing, then I guess it is ok.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500.

Then I take it our actions at our local regional will lower our potential to be picked by you at championships? That is a very sad and unintended consequence.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Then I take it our actions at our local regional will lower our potential to be picked by you at championships? That is a very sad and unintended consequence.

It would take a whole lot more for 842 (and many of the other Arizona teams) not make our pick list.

I hope my previous post didn't come off that we just care about winning and won't pick teams who don't share the same views. While I personally wouldn't have agreed to the bet, I can't fault a team for doing what is in their best interest at the time.

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I hate to say it, but it kind of is notable. If given the choice between fairly equal robots, I'd choose to play with the team that fights to the last second to win opposed to deciding to play for a secondary game of $500 when things look bleak.

See my last post:

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first.

[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.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

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." 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.

I first want to say I love you guys. I do have to clarify something here. I hope I don't hurt anyones feeling in AZ but the situation was as such that after the first match, the losing alliance saw that they did not have a chance or a very slim one at winning so they took the challenge put forth by Steve Sanghi to hopefully do something incredible. By this point, the competition directly between us was over and we were trying to accomplish what no one took up earlier. We were in a sense working together in the spirit of co-opertition to achieve this new goal. It was exciting and I would bet you won't find one person who was there say they disagreed.

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

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

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first. How did they NOT play to the best of their ability?

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

The blue alliance did BETTER in the second match than in the first. How did they NOT play to the best of their ability?

Like many things in FIRST the process is important. I have no problem with an alliance that decides their best chance at winning is pure offence. I don't agree with the practice of making arrangements with opponents to achieve a secondary objective. The scores were much higher but the change in point differential between matches was 3.

You are allowed to disagree but the success of Cory's team is no reason to dismiss his opinion.