paper: Alliance Seeds and Results

[BBray_T1296]

I feel like this year with so much dependability on a full working team, that the serpentine draft did a good job.

At both regionals we attended, we were the 8th seeded alliance, and came within just a couple of points of beating the #1 seeded alliance both times, Giving the #1 seeded alliance the hardest fight they saw.

At Texas Robot Roundup the lower seeds eliminated at least 2 of the 4 higher opponents, and at RoboReboot we were 5th seed (there were only enough teams for 5 seeds so we were lowest) and still won the event, beating #4, #1, and #2

This year you could do a lot of damage with 3 fairly competitive robots compared to 2 great ones and a seed #24.

I have heard some reasonable suggestions before, but what is the better alternative?

[Basel A]

I never thought lower seeds would have more success than higher seeds, but perhaps more success than they've had in previous years. Would be interested to compare a chart like this to one from 2013 or the past few years. It'd also be interesting to look at the same results from different sizes of event, smaller vs. larger.

[Brian Maher]

There were a couple factors that caused me to want to look at this data. At MAR champs, we were on the #2 alliance, and we were eliminated by a strong 7th seed alliance. It made me wonder, how often does this happen?
I was also following the WVROX off-season, which was played by 24 teams. The #1, #3, and #4 alliances were all eliminated in quarterfinals. I was originally going to include event size data and look at that, but I thought this was plenty to look at. If you would like the event size info and maybe a graph or two, I can easily put that together.

[IKE]

Jim Z compiled previous years. This data set is more favorable to the lower half of the bracket than most years. Typically #7 is an absolute dead spot and there we're 4 victories that year.
I don't think anything needs to be done to help lower alliances. #1 earns the right to first pick. And the rest makes sense. Serpentine does help add some variability.

[qzrrbz]

not that there is much skew as a result, but kind of thinking the CMP divisions are a different kettle of fish for this analysis...

the 32nd robot was a great robot at CMP -- what mattered was how the chemistry came together, not draft vagaries!

[seanthompson]

I don"t think that there really is a problem to fix. The #1 has earned the spot after 10 qualification matches, and eliminations aren't supposed to be a level playing field. Plus, i think that serpentine actually helps a ton, and we just can't see it. Imagine having #1 pick first in the 2nd round of selections as well! Without serpentine, #1 would probably win more like 75% of the time.

[Deke]

I believe the one #8 seed that won, beat the #1 alliance in the quarter finals. In those quarter finals, the #1 seeded robot had their electronics ripped out during match play and were extremely crippled in the first or second match.

It is still a testament that once they got past the #1 alliance, the next best alliance couldn't beat them.

[percussionette]

At Center Line, when the number 8 alliance beat the number 1, the number 8 alliance was accumulating fouls against the number 1 alliance in every match (this was week 1 so some bugs in the fouls were present.) Such as driving underneath of appendages. The number 8 alliance gave the number 1 extensive damage, such as smashed frames, broken polycarbonate, and wrecked electronics. They had good chemistry, too, which definitely contributed to their winning alliance