301 points! and could have done more

[Dave McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

I think the better question would be if an alliance is allowed to discuss strategies with an opposing alliance that may alter match play.

Yes, discussing strategies that revolve around completing objectives added to match play by a third party that would alter previous strategy and have a cash payout...

My problem is not with these teams, or that these teams agreed to undertake this challenge. It is that this challenge had a dollar amount attached to it.

Edit: I mean I also have a problem with the challenge as well, but I think that stems from the money involved.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by MoHottaMoBetta

So the only way to play AA is to be playing defense when we dont have the ball?

I'm pretty certain that all the teams were trying their best to score as much as possible and win the match and the blue banner.

What else would you do when you don't have the ball? Though it is unrelated to the events here and has/is already being discussed in other threads, the nature of the game gives 2/3 of an alliance basically nothing to do when they don't have the ball. Most competitive alliances at the regionals I've watched utilize that time as efficiently as possible, most often by playing defense (even, and especially, the top scorers of alliances are playing D too).

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Why wouldn't it be?

I did exactly that in 2002 in front of Woodie Flowers (he was literally standing right by me as I called the other alliance drive coaches over to discuss the match). He seemed to think it was funny.

Qualification points were a little weirder back then- if you lost you got your score or, if you won, three times the losers score. So it was beneficial to make sure you won but also to make sure the other alliances scores were high. It lead to all kinds of funny stuff; teams scoring for their opponents and, in a few cases, 'fixing' the match. In our case both alliances came out of the match with higher rankings than if we had played a 'normal' match.

At the time it caused a little controversy but people pretty quickly figured out it was just the smart play in some cases and, not surprisingly, FIRST didn't disagree.

That's a different scenario, in that the qualification system back then made it that certain strategies could be advantageous towards both alliances. In eliminations, there are only wins and losses, so there is no valid reason to do anything like that.

Also, for the last couple years FIRST has eliminated such qualification systems, for the most part...

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by bduddy

That's a different scenario, in that the qualification system back then made it that certain strategies could be advantageous towards both alliances. In eliminations, there are only wins and losses, so there is no valid reason to do anything like that.

Sure, but that wasn't the question posed and, in any case, it appears that even today sometimes there are valid reasons to do this. You can disagree as to whether or not such reasons are truly valid but, hey, it's legal, there's precedent for it and both teams potentially benefit. The GDC may well disagree but I sort of doubt they will.

Originally Posted by bduddy

Also, for the last couple years FIRST has eliminated such qualification systems, for the most part...

Which, in my mind, is a mistake. It simplifies the scoring but the games back then were a little more interesting in my mind because of it. It'd have some interesting ramifications for this years game, to be sure.

[connor.worley]

Time for this thread to be locked? Broken records on all sides...

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

If you go back thru the thread, you might find a post by a member of team 1492, with a link to the video of the offer. Something like $1000 payment towards registration for Champs for the teams on the winning alliance. I don't really remember.

I unfortunately stopped recording before he made that offer. But yes, it was $1000 towards the registration for Championship.

This was the video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

[Cory]

The sad/funny part of all this is that the two best alliances at the event couldn't even each score 200 points in a practice match...

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by Cory

The sad/funny part of all this is that the two best alliances at the event couldn't even each score 200 points in a practice match...

I'm sorry, but this completely un-needed. You're basically saying that the best two alliances at the regional weren't very good. Feel free to complain about the monetary incentive and the way the match was played, but it's absolutely disrespectful to insult the alliances like this.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by dodar

Well according to those who were there, the man who proposed the "challenge" is on the FIRST Board of Directors.

This is what upsets me.
The challenge was issued, apparently everyone agreed to it, we've beaten that horse to death already.

But why does someone who supposedly 'in line' with the mission and vision of FIRST, and represents FIRST at such a high level, think it is IN ANY WAY okay to offer money to teams in a way that alters match play and event outcomes?

What was he thinking?!

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by Cory

The sad/funny part of all this is that the two best alliances at the event couldn't even each score 200 points in a practice match...

Really?

Originally Posted by Libby K

What was he thinking?!

You should ask him!

My impression is that he is trying to inspire students.

PS: He did.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

You should ask him!

My impression is that he is trying to inspire students.

PS: He did.

Why?! Does he think FIRST isn't doing a good enough job of that? If so, he has plenty of other channels through which to change things.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

Really?



You should ask him!

My impression is that he is trying to inspire students.

PS: He did.

He inspired them to do something, all right. Inspired them to learn about science and technology and exercise gracious professionalism? Not so much, from this angle.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by JosephC

I'm sorry, but this completely un-needed. Your basically saying that best two alliances at the regional weren't very good. Feel free to complain about the monetary incentive and the way the match was played, but it's absolutely disrespectful to insult the alliances like this.

I echo this sentiment. Cory, I think that was simply a mean thing to say.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Why?! Does he think FIRST isn't doing a good enough job of that? If so, he has plenty of other channels through which to change things.

Maybe he as acting outside of this other responsibilities and just wanted to offer a challenge privately?

[nixiebunny]

Sheesh!

The monetary incentive offered my Mr. Sanghi to win the regional was $1000 per team. The monetary incentive to get a 200-200 match was $500 per team.

How on earth was the 200-200 incentive capable of motivating teams not to win the regional, in light of double the incentive to win the regional?