A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by 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.

We had this system at our offseason competition. It worked really well, and there were no alliances with two robots from the same team, in fact there were a couple of instances of teams playing AGAINST their second robots. We lost to our practice bot in the finals (of course, they were allianced with 1678 and 2122 )

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 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 believe someone called an audible on that one. Normal conditions would have been to do just that (especially looking at the posted rules).

Of course, normal methodology at Fall Classic is that the QFs are single-elimination, so it's 3/6 and 4/5, then 1 and 2 face the winners in typical fashion.

[Citrus Dad]

I'm sorry that you have to get so angry about a comment based on the information available on Blue Alliance. There is no indication in the Sunday information that the field was somehow of limited size. (And Saturday's info shows only the elimination alliances.) A more measured comment explaining the situation rather than lashing out is much more appropriate on a web forum. Please consider your language and tone when you enter a discussion here. It sounds like your anger is better aimed at the event organizers, but rationally and calmly discussing the options with them about how to make it a better event.

Originally Posted by EricH

So 1678 is going to come down next year to help expand the field, right? If you look at Saturday's selections, only 4 "B" robots were picked for eliminations, with only one pair on the same alliance (and that as the 4th robot). This may be because there was a much larger field to choose from.

While you're at it, why not comment about allowing teams to compete in both one-day tournaments including eliminations, instead of forcing them to choose one day? (Because, as you might notice, about half of the teams in Sunday's elims had competed in Saturday's eliminations as well.) After all, this is about inclusiveness and encouraging new participants, and I can't think of anything less encouraging than to get walloped by the same team two days in a row, or watching said team walk off with multiple days of awards even if they're not all the same. Or how about barring the "B" robots altogether, resulting in a much smaller event, because you want to include everybody and encourage all the new participants?


I generally consider the offseason events to be emphasizing FUN and TRAINING. As part of those, multiple teams like to swap out drive teams, or do other similar things. And truth to tell, it's rather entertaining to watch Twin A knock Twin B out of an event if they're on opposite sides (plus it gets the ENTIRE team cheering for an ENTIRE match).

Spoiler for :

For those that can't catch on very well... That second paragraph is intended to be somewhere between sarcasm and satire. I'm not seriously proposing either "solution".

The first paragraph is serious, or nearly so. The event could have used 1678's HP coach. As a ref, easily 60% of the fouls came from humans not knowing what was going on. One or two incidents stand out, but I think I'll save the teams and team members involved the embarrassment.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by 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.

I see the off season events as a different type of event than the Regionals and World Championships. And I see FIRST and FRC as MUCH different than the NFL, NCAA or even the National Federation Of State High School Associations. To put is simply we are NOT playing a sport like any other. The primary purpose of FIRST is to build enthusiasm for STEM and related educational activities. The primary (or even secondary) purpose is NOT to promote competition or entertainment. Focusing solely on competition rules and winning competitions can go to far and detract from the primary purpose of FIRST. First and foremost, we MUST always encourage as many students (and mentors) as possible to participate in an activity that directly leads to improved STEM education which in turn will lead to improve economic outcomes not only for the involved students but also for the national and global economy. If you're not on board with that concept yet, I suggest digging much deeper into the principles of FIRST and why Dean Kammen started this program.

(And note that I am not anti-sport. I won league individual and team championships and set a school record at a NCAA Division 1 school as well as competing in several national championships.)

That said, that means that we need to consider during the off season how might we increases the involvement and enthusiasm of potential new participants. Many students and even teams are new to FIRST in the fall before the Kickoff. Why not change the rules or at least the informal agreements about alliance selections as one way?

I like the rule of not being able to draft your 2nd robot unless none other are available. As for not drafting an alliance captain, there are two solutions. The first is have a coaches meeting beforehand and ask if the coaches agree that the competition is informal enough that they might agree to this. This year, I'm pretty sure that they would have said no at Chezy Champs and yest at Capital City where we competed. I have no problem with these different outcomes. A second approach is to have a rule that if a team was in the Top 8 going into the last match and they lose, then they can't be drafted in the first round, or alternatively, by the top 4 alliances. That will eliminate any real benefits from trying to game the rankings.

I think we need to keep in mind the spirit of what we're trying to achieve in FRC. We're not trying to build the De Le Salle football machine. We're trying to educate the best engineers, scientists and other professionals and technical workers that we can.

[Citrus Dad]

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.

It may not be a team's place to TELL another team what to do, but that does not mean that another team might express an opinion and try to persuade other teams what to do. We don't operate in isolation, and we may have a different opinion about the larger goal of the organization.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I'm sorry that you have to get so angry about a comment based on the information available on Blue Alliance. There is no indication in the Sunday information that the field was somehow of limited size. (And Saturday's info shows only the elimination alliances.) A more measured comment explaining the situation rather than lashing out is much more appropriate on a web forum. Please consider your language and tone when you enter a discussion here. It sounds like your anger is better aimed at the event organizers, but rationally and calmly discussing the options with them about how to make it a better event.

I was responding to the fact that without having ever been to the event, or apparently viewing the publicly available team list (follow the event link from the TBA page, and it's one more link to the spreadsheet), you had the appearance of criticizing the teams at the event for making choices that they chose to make. I believe a close analogy would be the "scorched earth" debate, particularly if triggered by someone from far away--say it happened at a Sacramento offseason and I, never having been to such an event, complained from down here. So, I responded from the standpoint of someone who WAS at the event, both days, working WITH the organizers to keep the event going. Trust me, it was a lot harder and a lot more frustrating than it should probably have been. Reference the thread on the event for some of the issues we had at various times.

Also, I did note (in the "spoiler") that I was not being entirely serious in the second paragraph. Some of it was intended as a "where does this sort of questioning stop", by showing the logical continuation of your stated reason for offseasons. For the record, the goal of the Fall Classic differs somewhat from your reasoning; for convenience:

Originally Posted by SCRRF Fall Classic page

The mission of the Fall Classic is to expand the awareness of FIRST Robotics Competition to students, teachers, sponsors and mentors from all across Southern California, as well as to provide existing teams an opportunity to compete with their robotic creations once again.

I guess some folks can't tell the difference between someone being angry and someone being sarcastic, even when the "sarcasm tags" are in use. It was a little bit of both, to be fair, and I did significant rewriting to tone it down from the original post. (On the topic of discussing with the event organizers--if you have a problem, real or perceived, with how an event is run, or something that happens with an event, shouldn't you contact the organizers, prior to posting on CD, as much as possible?)

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by EricH

I believe a close analogy would be the "scorched earth" debate,

I don't see the equivalence. Teams choose to decline when they are picked, they don't choose to not get picked. There's a reason that FRC only allows each team to bring one robot to an event. Having a powerhouse teams build 2 clones of their robot then proceed to pick both of them and steamroll the competition is fun for no one and directly opposes the idea of cooperative competition, instead it is only competition.

As you stated in a post of your own, seeing a teams A robot, and B robot face off in elims is great to see, we all agree on that. The concern that he is expressing is not that these teams have 3 robots in elims, the concern is that these robots are all ending up on the same alliance instead of pairing up with other teams and cooperating with teams that aren't their own.

I think this is a perfectly valid concern, it's somewhat of an unspoken rule that picking your own team isn't the most GP thing to do. Offseason competitions are not about winning, they are about giving teams experience, and the best way for new teams to gain experience is to play with veteran teams, not against them.

I guess some folks can't tell the difference between someone being angry and someone being sarcastic, even when the "sarcasm tags" are in use.

You specifically said you were serious in your first paragraph. I think he was safe in assuming that you were in fact serious. When someone discusses improvements you can make "then do it better yourself" isn't often seen as the most friendly, or mature response.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

I was responding to the fact that without having ever been to the event, or apparently viewing the publicly available team list (follow the event link from the TBA page, and it's one more link to the spreadsheet), you had the appearance of criticizing the teams at the event for making choices that they chose to make. I believe a close analogy would be the "scorched earth" debate, particularly if triggered by someone from far away--say it happened at a Sacramento offseason and I, never having been to such an event, complained from down here. So, I responded from the standpoint of someone who WAS at the event, both days, working WITH the organizers to keep the event going. Trust me, it was a lot harder and a lot more frustrating than it should probably have been. Reference the thread on the event for some of the issues we had at various times.

Also, I did note (in the "spoiler") that I was not being entirely serious in the second paragraph. Some of it was intended as a "where does this sort of questioning stop", by showing the logical continuation of your stated reason for offseasons. For the record, the goal of the Fall Classic differs somewhat from your reasoning; for convenience:
I guess some folks can't tell the difference between someone being angry and someone being sarcastic, even when the "sarcasm tags" are in use. It was a little bit of both, to be fair, and I did significant rewriting to tone it down from the original post. (On the topic of discussing with the event organizers--if you have a problem, real or perceived, with how an event is run, or something that happens with an event, shouldn't you contact the organizers, prior to posting on CD, as much as possible?)

I couldn't tell what part was sarcasm and which part was anger. (And sarcasm is often hidden anger.) It's the problem with Internet postings--you can't hear tone of voice.

As for the complaints about the event, I wasn't the one complaining about the event--it appeared that you were. I was thinking about the broader issue of selecting off season alliances, and this situation just highlighted this bigger issue. It made me think much more about how we need to focus on that during our alliance selection at off season events.

254 told us that they chose 1114 at IRC because they has already allied with 469 and they hadn't been with 1114 before. I thought that was a tremendous attitude. We are all both competitors and alliance mates because of the FRC format. We should try to join with as many teams as possible in various situations. It sure makes it much more fun! http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/im...es/biggrin.gif

[EricH]

Originally Posted by themccannman

I don't see the equivalence. Teams choose to decline when they are picked, they don't choose to not get picked. There's a reason that FRC only allows each team to bring one robot to an event. Having a powerhouse teams build 2 clones of their robot then proceed to pick both of them and steamroll the competition is fun for no one and directly opposes the idea of cooperative competition, instead it is only competition.

Note: Not all of the teams that had two robots were powerhouses. Matter of fact, only two (or three, counting Saturday) would normally be considered even close. (A third/fourth team is in some years and is not in other years.) And of those teams, at least two had distinct differences between the A and the B robots. (One B team just so happened to be running BETA hardware, for example.)

The equivalence is this: It's something that many people disagree with, that is a valid play under event rules. Therefore, if someone is complaining, they really have no solid footing other than "I think it's not fair". OK, you don't like it, we get it. But we happen to have our own opinion. In this case, event rules happen to differ from FRC rules. You don't like it, but the event organizers chose to allow it, so it's perfectly valid, regardless of whether you like it or not.

I think this is a perfectly valid concern, it's somewhat of an unspoken rule that picking your own team isn't the most GP thing to do. Offseason competitions are not about winning, they are about giving teams experience, and the best way for new teams to gain experience is to play with veteran teams, not against them.

And the other example of a "solid footing" that I mentioned above is "It's not GP". And, different teams have different agendas for offseasons. Obviously, yours differs a little bit from the teams that were there. I can't speak for them as to why they picked their twins but as alliance captains, they can pick any team that isn't already picked.

You specifically said you were serious in your first paragraph. I think he was safe in assuming that you were in fact serious. When someone discusses improvements you can make "then do it better yourself" isn't often seen as the most friendly, or mature response.

I also specifically stated that I was NOT serious in my second paragraph. Therefore, that's not a safe assumption to make, unless of course you happen to not have read that far. (Which people have been known to do, but I'm thinking that's not the case here.) And the response was not "do it better yourself", it was "come down here and give us a hand with a lack of teams if you want to comment". As I specifically noted, 1678's HP coach would have been especially welcome due to mass human player foulage.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

It's the problem with Internet postings--you can't hear tone of voice.

As for the complaints about the event, I wasn't the one complaining about the event--it appeared that you were.

True on the tone of voice. Incorrect on the complaining about the event--I got that out of my system at the event, mainly about specific aspects that made life a lot more difficult than it needed to be (and had a concrete fix that will be in place next Fall Classic if it's needed for the game). I wasn't complaining about the event, but about the response (and the response type), reference below. Partly noting that it didn't go far enough to meet the suggested emphasis/goal/experience... but that got into the sarcasm/satire range.

and found it disturbing that so many teams chose their second robot as an alliance member. Even though there were only 18 teams total, many were left out of the 16 robots that were in the semifinals.

The emphasis on fall competitions should be inclusiveness and encouraging new participants. Draft choices that narrow the alliances to just a few teams seems to run counter to that experience. I hope the teams left out at that tournament weren't too disappointed.

Referencing the post that opened the thread, the bold parts seem to indicate some complaining/concerns; the rest sort of emphasizes those as more on the complaint side, at least to me. Sort of a "These teams/this event just don't get it, they aren't working the way they should be working, I hope it worked out but I don't think it did", if you see where I'm going. Which, if you look at it for a couple of minutes, might look rather familiar, though usually it's expressed on a much different topic. And the usual response is something to the effect of "Says who, it's run differently from you but still in a valid way, don't try to dictate how another team/event is run..." [I think y'all can fill in the rest if you're so inclined].

Incidentally, I think I can answer the second bold portion for two teams. One declined due to a sidecar issue (fried, I think they said); the other due to unknown electrical gremlins that they didn't want to burden their alliance with, or something to that effect. I think any disappointment there would be directed within the teams, as in disappointment at their own issues, which would be an issue at a regional as well, not at being left out of eliminations due to twin-picking.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by EricH

Note: Not all of the teams that had two robots were powerhouses. Matter of fact, only two (or three, counting Saturday) would normally be considered even close. (A third/fourth team is in some years and is not in other years.) And of those teams, at least two had distinct differences between the A and the B robots. (One B team just so happened to be running BETA hardware, for example.)

As I mentioned, and you acknowledged, this doesn't strictly apply to powerhouse teams. Teams do not learn by allying with themselves. Whether or not you agree, it is the responsibility of successful teams to help bring up the competition around them. FRC is not about winning, it's about bringing up the overall level of competition across the field. Neither experienced teams, nor inexperienced teams benefit from pairing with their own team. Independent of team ability, it's not beneficial for them to ally with themselves.

The equivalence is this: It's something that many people disagree with, that is a valid play under event rules. Therefore, if someone is complaining, they really have no solid footing other than "I think it's not fair". OK, you don't like it, we get it. But we happen to have our own opinion. In this case, event rules happen to differ from FRC rules. You don't like it, but the event organizers chose to allow it, so it's perfectly valid, regardless of whether you like it or not.

And the other example of a "solid footing" that I mentioned above is "It's not GP". And, different teams have different agendas for offseasons. Obviously, yours differs a little bit from the teams that were there. I can't speak for them as to why they picked their twins but as alliance captains, they can pick any team that isn't already picked.

With gracious professionalism being one of the main points of FIRST I don't think it is an element of competition to be taken lightly. It's not about whether or not I like it or if I think it's fair. It's about what's better for the future or FIRST and teams that participate in it. Sure it's not against FRC rules to refuse to speak to other teams, but I don't think anyone finds that to be a good idea. I think I've made my point that it is clearly in everyone's interest to work with other teams rather than against them.

I also specifically stated that I was NOT serious in my second paragraph.

Hence why we're not replying to commentary in your second paragraph. I believe everything we've addressed has been in response to your first paragraph.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Hence why we're not replying to commentary in your second paragraph. I believe everything we've addressed has been in response to your first paragraph.

My first paragraph should probably be taken as "We didn't have enough teams. You apparently didn't even look at the other set of data from the same event. Are you guys going to sit at home and say 'you guys are doing it wrong' and NOT come down here next year to show us how you think it should be done?" Meanwhile it seems like most of the commentary has been "It seems like these teams/this event did it wrong" vs "It's how they want to play, let 'em play that way!"


I don't necessarily agree that it's not beneficial to ally with your own team's B robot. It can be quite beneficial, in terms of winning the event (and all the effects of winning an offseason event), assuming that that actually happens, due to having not one but two of the X robots on the alliance being controlled by good friends. I see it as little different than two collaborating teams with the same robot running on the same alliance. You could (at 4-team-alliance events) sit one of the two and end up with one perfectly good robot and one spare robot that can equal it if necessary. There are some other decent reasons, most likely, and I'm sure there are some negatives too, but each team at the offseason that has a twin robot has to make that decision. (In this case, including the team that ran two robots as well as supplying most of the volunteers!)


As far as the GP/non-GP: Usually, if someone comes out and says "That's un-GP", they're complaining about a legal strategy that they just happen not to like, or something similar, and often have adjusted it to fit their own definition. 9/10 times, there is no real way to call "un-GP" on a situation without showing up as being the opposite of GP yourself. But very rarely, there is that one time. This might be that time, it might not be.

[New Lightning]

I think the whole of this thread comes down to this, What is the spirit in which the event was organized? Was it meant to be an all out competition, who is the best, who could put together the best 1, or two, robot(s) and play the best game, or was it to encourage involvement in FIRST. If its the former then by all means the rules should be pick whoever you want and may the best alliance when. But if it is the latter, which I suspect is the case for most off season events, then there should be some limit to who you can and cannot pick for eliminations. And that decision belongs to those that organize the event on how best to encourage involvement of other teams. If you don't like the rules, then you don't have to go, find some other event to go to. Rather than going to an event then complaining about it here on CD or anywhere else.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

My first paragraph should probably be taken as "We didn't have enough teams. You apparently didn't even look at the other set of data from the same event. Are you guys going to sit at home and say 'you guys are doing it wrong' and NOT come down here next year to show us how you think it should be done?" Meanwhile it seems like most of the commentary has been "It seems like these teams/this event did it wrong" vs "It's how they want to play, let 'em play that way!"

I don't necessarily agree that it's not beneficial to ally with your own team's B robot. It can be quite beneficial, in terms of winning the event (and all the effects of winning an offseason event), assuming that that actually happens, due to having not one but two of the X robots on the alliance being controlled by good friends. I see it as little different than two collaborating teams with the same robot running on the same alliance. You could (at 4-team-alliance events) sit one of the two and end up with one perfectly good robot and one spare robot that can equal it if necessary. There are some other decent reasons, most likely, and I'm sure there are some negatives too, but each team at the offseason that has a twin robot has to make that decision. (In this case, including the team that ran two robots as well as supplying most of the volunteers!)


As far as the GP/non-GP: Usually, if someone comes out and says "That's un-GP", they're complaining about a legal strategy that they just happen not to like, or something similar, and often have adjusted it to fit their own definition. 9/10 times, there is no real way to call "un-GP" on a situation without showing up as being the opposite of GP yourself. But very rarely, there is that one time. This might be that time, it might not be.

I'm not quite following your argument, but I think that I'm getting from you that if picking your own robot to win the competition is the best strategy we should be able to do it. And I am generally disagreeing. That off season competition was not at the level of IRI or Chezy Champs in prestige, and having 2 separate days of competition clearly diluted it even further.

As a competitive athlete, I knew when certain competitions were very important, and other ones where I could work on different strategies or work with my teammates or even friends to improve their competitive outcomes. Not every "competition" is of the same importance or consequences. Rarely are off season events of significant importance, and never of the same consequence as a Regional or District.

Because backing from the competitive fires requires mutual agreement among all of the teams--it can't be instituted by a team on their own for very obvious reasons--the event organizers need to dictate the tone of the competition.

At the Fall Classic, two alliances on Sunday had dual team robots. Why couldn't they have swapped in some manner? Teams are missing the entire point of the FRC alliance structure if they think that all of the benefits need to accrue within a single team playing among "good friends." Why can't you have "good friends" on other teams? We most certainly would rather play with other teams than with ourselves. I honestly don't see any pluses of playing together within our own team vs learning even more about alliance management with other teams (and having 2 drive teams learning similar lessons). You do NOT learn alliance management if you have 2 robots from the same team. (And why not double the chance that you'll be on an winning alliance by splitting your team?) Alliance management has been critical to our recent success--maybe the single most important one.

And your right, most of the commentary has been contrary to how it played out. That's the point of this post. Regardless of the shortage of teams, it could have been managed better.

And more more importantly, we can hope that other off season events think more explicitly about this issue.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

...

There have been some good points made in this threads but I think we are hitting a point where the discussion is getting pointless as it is starting to come down to what works for team xxxx doesn't always work for team yyyy.

Every year teams compete at events (official and offseason) for various reasons and there isn't one blanket reason that will work for every team. Even at regionals/districts you will meet teams who aren't there to win on the field. Not every offseason event is viewed the same way by every team. Even at a pretty laid back event there will be teams who are there with the intent to do their best and are aiming to win and there are those who are just training new students or giving new ones a chance. If a team wants to do so by picking a certain robot that is their decision even if is is their own.

If you really have an issue go talk to the event organizers instead of debating here on CD where it is pointless and it isn't hard to tell what teams you are referring to.