A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[EricH]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Okay if there were only 32 teams, and each captain then selected 3 other robots to be on their alliance then yes everybody is all ready participating and therefore not adding any new teams to the mix. But if you have an event with more than 32 teams, like Cow Town Throw Down this year, then that is when it opens the field to more teams.

No, it doesn't. Math doesn't lie (it leaves that to abuse of statistics). 8*4=32. Regardless of how many teams are at the event, if 8 alliance captains pick 3 more teams per alliance, there are still only 32 teams in eliminations. End Of Story.

What disallowing inter-top-8 selection does is it creates some incentive to throw a match. If I'm "on the bubble", say in #7, and I want to be picked by the top team, I'm NOT going to want to win my last match in such an event! What this sort of rule does is it creates a "scorched earth" right from the get-go--but it's the sort of "scorched earth" where if you can play the metagame right, you can win HUGE. See Curie 2010, Match 100, only potentially more devastating, to more than one team.

Oh, and it jumbles up exactly which teams are on which alliances in eliminations. Possibly. Depends on scouting and final drafting order.

As for the rest... Let's just say that you've made a lot of assumptions, very few of which are actually the case. Starting with the assumption that the top 8 are always actually the top 8 robots--I'm going to guess that you haven't heard of a couple of cases where a robot that hadn't passed inspection made it into the top 8 via ranking. There's a reason behind the whole "if you play a match with an uninspected robot, your entire alliance gets a red card" rule. And then assuming that the 1/8 and 2/7 matches are always a blowout in favor of the top alliance; I've seen a #8 alliance take a World Championship. As far as real competition-like situations, I show you qual matches and elim matches in the season events, and note that the no-top-8 picking or some variant was in play for precisely one season or less before it was officially scrapped due to teams playing to lose and manipulate the rankings.


Incidentally, IIRC, a "no top 8" rule would have had little to no effect at Fall Classic on Sunday. A "no alliance captain" would have had even less effect. There were only 4 alliances, and as I recall most of the 2nd robots were down a bit more than 4 or 8 or whatever, though not that far down.

[Chief Hedgehog]

This is where I have a struggle. MRI was a great showing by some upper level teams in MN. MRI had 33 robots and elims were between 4 alliances. My team (4607) was in the running for a captain's spot until the 7th round (when the opposing ball got lodged in between our catapult and our frame). We lost that match 12? to 97 I believe. But that is inconsequential as we ended up as the #7 seed.

However, at the time the scout team wanted to draft 4536 (correct me if I am wrong inkling) because their robot had a double intake witch mated well with our game play. We are very good at in-bounding and then truss passing to the human player. We could then load 4536 with the human player and 4536 could kiss-pass the ball to 2530 (who was on fire in the later rounds). If we would have finished in the top 4, we would have chosen 4536 and then most likely 2530. No matter where they ended up in the field, it gave our team the best possible alliance. Why should any team be relegated to choose from a select group of teams when the teams that make us better sit as a top 4 or 8?

I truly believe that when you look at off-season events, you need to allow your newbies to develop in a real-game situation. I have coached many sports for many years and I am following what I know is best to create the best situation for my team to develop. In the case of MRI, I wanted to either be with 2175, 2052, 1816, 3883, etc. or face them in the elims. I don't want to have my scout team do all their work just to pick from the least to play against an average alliance each round of elims. It makes no sense. I want my team to play with the best and then face off against the best 16 or 32 teams.

Otherwise, why not just random draw the quals and call it quits at the end? I am still not getting it I guess.

Originally Posted by artK

I also find it wrong that teams are picking their second robots, not only on an inclusiveness level (it is the offseason), but from a strategic perspective. Why would you put all your eggs in one basket like that?!?! Unless you're in the final picks and your second (or tenth) robot is actually the best robot for your alliance (not likely true considering the nature of cycles this year), you should spread yourself throughout the bracket.
Worst case is that you play yourself, but who knows when (Could be anywhere, even the finals)?

I don't see a problem with playing with your own team.

[artK]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

I don't see a problem with playing with your own team.

IIRC, 971 was the alliance captain, they had the final say .

[MARS_James]

In my opinion (and it may be an unpopular one) while an off season event is more fun and laid back then a traditional regional, it is still a competition that we pay for, there is still a tournament structure with Awards, and teams who are crowned champion/winner. If an event wants to run a no seconds bots or no second bots in eliminations or (even worse) no second bots till all "real" bots are picked let the teams decide if they want to pay to go to said event.

I really dislike this thread as at Panther Prowl after all alliances were picked we did have 5 teams who were left out because second bots made it to eliminations: 1649, 2152, 2916, 3502, and 4592. None of these teams seemed to have an issue with not being picked for eliminations because of second bots (atleast from who I have talked to) heck 2152's second robot was actually picked and they weren't.

What it comes down to is plain and simple: To paraphrase a man much smarter then me the F in FIRST does not stand for Fair. We are playing a sport just like any other and sometimes the pendulum swings the other way. Do I wish there was a way for every team to compete at every level while still maintaining a quality of competition? Yes, is that feasible? No.

[New Lightning]

Okay, looking back over this thread I feel like kind of an idiot, I don't know what I was thinking. Its true there will only be 32 teams, and that no matter what system you use there will still be 32 teams. However, I still feel that a system, just for the off season, where the alliance captains can't pick from each other creates better competition in the elim rounds. In any kind of event there will he the people that get to a top 8 ranked team, that probably shouldn't have been there. But that is still part of the game adapting to who can be on your alliance, and how you use those robots. And yes #8 teams can go out and when championships, but they still had to go out and earn that by playing and using what teams they had available to them. By using this system lower ranked teams have the opportunity to play with higher ranked teams, which allows them to get experience and perhaps grow as a team from the experience, maybe make a friend that normally wouldn't have. There will always be pros and cons to any system, I happen to like the CTTD system for off season, doesn't mean everyone else shares my same opinion.

[XaulZan11]

I'm not sure it's other teams place to tell other teams who they cannot or shouldn't pick. Similar to the adults on drive team and mentor involvement, it should be up to those individual teams to make decisions for their team based on their goals and values.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by artK

IIRC, 971 was the alliance captain, they had the final say .

1323 was the alliance captain that year, but I'm sure they checked with 971's scouting data. Madtown wasn't very competitive in 2012 like it is every other year.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm not sure it's other teams place to tell other teams who they cannot or shouldn't pick. Similar to the adults on drive team and mentor involvement, it should be up to those individual teams to make decisions for their team based on their goals and values.

The captains still have full control over who the pick as long as its not another alliance captain. At least for CTTD. And I agree it should be up to the individual team members on who to pick, but by forcing the best teams to pick from outside themselves it makes the entire elimination process more competitive and more entertaining for the spectators and the teams involved. And the goal of FIRST is to inspire students to get involved in STEM related carrier fields and activities and to have fun. And when the completion is more competitive, the entire experience is more fun.

[BrendanB]

It really depends on the event organizers and how they want to run it. If an event decides to allow additional robots either to fill the event to 24 or make the playing field larger it is their decision. If a team brings more than one robot it is their decision to play there and if a team doesn't bring another robot it is their decision to play there.

Depending on the access to off-season events for teams it should be considered when making the decision. So if its the one event of the year that teams can get to I would favor no additional bots until all single teams have been selected. The nice option is to just cap the event at 24 or say third bots can't play in elims if you want to keep filling it if third bots are needed to get to 24 then its the first ones needed to fill 24.

It also does come down to the teams who are competing with a second robot if they want to select their own robot but we are all adults so that is their decision to make.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Okay, looking back over this thread I feel like kind of an idiot, I don't know what I was thinking. Its true there will only be 32 teams, and that no matter what system you use there will still be 32 teams.

Don't worry, you're not an idiot. My intuition also told me that more teams would play in elims under that system. However, I try not to listen to intuition if it doesn't lead me to a well reasoned argument.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

However, at the time the scout team wanted to draft 4536 (correct me if I am wrong inkling) because their robot had a double intake witch mated well with our game play. We are very good at in-bounding and then truss passing to the human player. We could then load 4536 with the human player and 4536 could kiss-pass the ball to 2530 (who was on fire in the later rounds). If we would have finished in the top 4, we would have chosen 4536 and then most likely 2530. No matter where they ended up in the field, it gave our team the best possible alliance. Why should any team be relegated to choose from a select group of teams when the teams that make us better sit as a top 4 or 8?

Yep, I could tell your team wanted to pick ours, I agree it would have made for very exciting elimination rounds. Our robots are about as different as robots could be, but I think that working together would have been spectacular. If only we could somehow combine our robots into one. A robot with your shooter and our intake system would totally dominate.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

1323 was the alliance captain that year, but I'm sure they checked with 971's scouting data. Madtown wasn't very competitive in 2012 like it is every other year.

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

2012 was 1323's best robot.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

2012 was 1323's best robot.

Oops! I didn't mean their robot, their robot was fantastic, I meant the Throwdown overall.

[Qbot2640]

I've read this whole thread, and may have missed someone else suggesting this - but wouldn't a better way to include everyone have just been to use six alliances of three, rather than four of four. Give alliance one and two a quarterfinal bye, then proceed like a full elimination.

I agree with the many who don't have a problem with choosing your own B-team, and I also agree with the many who point out the problems with a no-captains policy. Keep it free - works best that way.