Einstein 2014

[Lij2015]

Originally Posted by bkahl

With that said, here are my picks:

Archimedes:
33 27 3525

Curie:
254 118 3015

Galileo:
148 67 2363

Newton:
1114 1285 3928

Archimedes over Curie
Newton over Galileo

Archimedes in 3

Thanks for the shout-out!
To be on that alliance on Einstein would be beyond amazing!

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

A better example might be the 2013 World Champions. I wasn't there so I might have missed something, but I'm not sure how 610, a robot capable of scoring 112 points by itself without ever picking a disc up off the ground fell to be a third pick. They even had pretty alright full-court capability and a removable blocker.

I sat in the stands on Galileo and still couldn't believe it. When 8 started going back, I kept saying "they're gonna pick 610." I still don't believe it.

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

A better example might be the 2013 World Champions. I wasn't there so I might have missed something, but I'm not sure how 610, a robot capable of scoring 112 points by itself without ever picking a disc up off the ground fell to be a third pick. They even had pretty alright full-court capability and a removable blocker.

I don't think anyone on 610 complained about the result, of course...

But yes, we were surprised we fell that far. We knew we were going to fall because we weren't a tall FCS, nor did we have a ground intake. We just weren't expecting to fall that far.

We were ranked #10 in the FRC Top 25 going in to champs. So we didn't really "fly under the radar." Our 112 point single-handed match was a popular video, and showed us doing 3 auton discs and 7 cycles without missing a single disc, and dodging defenders. People knew who we were, and that we had a pretty good robot.

In fact, a lot of "pure cyclers" fell really far last year - not just us. I will even go as far to say that a lot of "decent shooters" will fall significantly this year, with some missing elims altogether because alliances chose to pick superior inbounders + defenders instead.

So I guess my response to all the "far-fetched" alliances proposed in this thread:

"Crazier things have happened... especially at champs."

[Procolsaurus]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

In fact, a lot of "pure cyclers" fell really far last year - not just us. I will even go as far to say that a lot of "decent shooters" will fall significantly this year, with some missing elims altogether because alliances chose to pick superior inbounders + defenders instead.

Thankfully this year there are 32 teams going to eliminations.

I think the specialized teams will be taken on the 8 ->1 selections then the rest of the pretty strong carry teams will end up being the second 1 -> 8.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Cory

Not the best example. 1114 was going to win with just about anyone. John even publicly posted that his fridge could have been put on the field in place of 148, and they still would have won.

So, in 2008, the GDC gave us a 3 robot game that could be won at its highest level, without the assistance of one of the robots? Then this year's game is a step in the right direction.

Maybe Overdrive needed a third trackball for each alliance, or more lap points in teleop. As I recall, 2008 was a challenging year for referees also.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

So, in 2008, the GDC gave us a 3 robot game that could be won at its highest level, without the assistance of one of the robots? Then this year's game is a step in the right direction.

Maybe Overdrive needed a third trackball for each alliance, or more lap points in teleop. As I recall, 2008 was a challenging year for referees also.

He's saying the game could be won with that specific robot, 1114, because they were so dominant. It's like 2012 or 2013 where one bot could carry an alliance, or the top 2 at a regional could team up and be far ahead of everyone else. Except in this scenario, the margin was smaller, but 1114 was still above everyone else by enough to reduce the impart of the third robot, especially when the scoring was fairly linear.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

He's saying the game could be won with that specific robot, 1114, because they were so dominant. It's like 2012 or 2013 where one bot could carry an alliance, or the top 2 at a regional could team up and be far ahead of everyone else. Except in this scenario, the margin was smaller, but 1114 was still above everyone else by enough to reduce the impart of the third robot, especially when the scoring was fairly linear.

To add to that, many people thought 217 was the 2nd best robot in FIRST that year. So when 1114 picked 217, many people thought the competition was already done. That's not to say that 148 wasn't great in their role - that was the perfect robot for that alliance.

[Starke]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

To add to that, many people thought 217 was the 2nd best robot in FIRST that year. So when 1114 picked 217, many people thought the competition was already done. That's not to say that 148 wasn't great in their role - that was the perfect robot for that alliance.

Something interesting to note is that the unbeatable 1114 robot in 2008 lost in the semifinals in two matches at IRI that year.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m1

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m2

Only at IRI.....

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

ITT, people who don't know about 4 robot alliances.

TIL that reading the rulebook is sometimes useful.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Starke

Something interesting to note is that the unbeatable 1114 robot in 2008 lost in the semifinals in two matches at IRI that year.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m1

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m2

Only at IRI.....

Though, it doesn't look like 1114 was working in the first match, and I don't see (or hear) 2056 on the field for the second match.

This is also back when 2056 was 'Patriotics' rather than 'OP Robotics'...took me a second to get used to that when the announcer said their name.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Starke

Something interesting to note is that the unbeatable 1114 robot in 2008 lost in the semifinals in two matches at IRI that year.

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m1

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2008iri_sf1m2

Only at IRI.....

Good 'ol Alliance Flags. Back when bumpers were fashion statements.

[sammyjalex]

My favorite game

A: 20 2056 1538 334
C: 254 469 177 842
G: 1717 67 973 869
N: 1114 16 25 1574

A over C
N over G

A over N

Go Archimedes!

[ErvinI]

Using predicted standings to figure out who the captains are and then using max OPR to figure out who they are going to pick, this is what I got for Einstein:

Archimedes: 1477, 1625, 175, 2607
Curie: 469, 1718, 230 , 1732
Galileo: 3683, 148, 70, 1730
Newton: 1986, 1114, 3928, 3824

Curie over Archimedes
Newton over Galileo

Curie World Champions

I don't like how the data came out, so I'm just leaving this here for now in case any of these alliances come true. Feel free to bug me if you want the other alliances that formed. There aren't that many surprises in terms of seeding upsets when it comes to OPR.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

Archimedes: 1477, 1625, 175, 2607
Curie: 469, 1718, 230 , 1732
Galileo: 3683, 148, 70, 1730
Newton: 1986, 1114, 3928, 3824

I bet I can guess which alliance Aren Hill would root NOT to win.

[electroken]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

Using predicted standings to figure out who the captains are and then using max OPR to figure out who they are going to pick, this is what I got for Einstein:

Archimedes: 1477, 1625, 175, 2607
Curie: 469, 1718, 230 , 1732
Galileo: 3683, 148, 70, 1730
Newton: 1986, 1114, 3928, 3824

Curie over Archimedes
Newton over Galileo

Curie World Champions

I don't like how the data came out, so I'm just leaving this here for now in case any of these alliances come true. Feel free to bug me if you want the other alliances that formed. There aren't that many surprises in terms of seeding upsets when it comes to OPR.

I like the way you think...