A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree in general. We didn't go to this event, but we also can't contact every off season event and inquire about what they plan on doing. CD is where we can have a broader discussion about this issue and hopefully raise awareness for all of the event organizers in a common arena. And event organizers don't make their decisions in a vacuum--they listen to what others are saying from outside. There's no reason not to try to influence their decisions if you so desire.

And finally these teams and events are actually part of a bigger FIRST organization. It is the organization, not the individual events, that should set the overall tone and objectives. Again that means that we are all part of that conversation and we should comment on those that we think deviate from that tone and objective.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I'm going to add a couple stories from two of the off-seasons we attended/ran this year.

The first was TRI (Texas Robotics Invitational), this event was provided free of charge to every team that registered and was built to promote the younger and less experienced teams in the state. We wanted everyone to be able to play in eliminations because for some teams this may be there first time being on an elimination alliance and that's an important part of the FRC experience and we felt we could give it to more teams. For that reason we limited the event to no B robots and exactly 32 teams (8 x 4 team alliances). We also messed with the alliance picking a lot. In Texas there is a pretty distinct group every year of who are the top robots, regularly 118, 148, 624, 1477, we love the top teams but it's easy to see how a final at 4+ events that puts the same 3 or 4 teams against each other every time could be discouraging to other teams. To try to even out the alliances and not have 1-8 and 2-7 matches so lopsided we instituted this system.

Alliance Selection and Elimination Tournament
The top 8 seeds will be the alliance captains but their selection order will be randomly assigned. Alliance captains may not select other alliance captains. A serpentine order will be in place for first two selection of an alliance. The fourth members of each alliance will be randomly assigned to them from the remaining teams.
1. Top 8 Teams = Alliance Captain
2. Top 8 Team numbers are placed into a hat, the first team drawn is now the #1 alliance captain and allowed to select their first alliance partner from the pool of teams that are not captains.
3. This continues through all 8 teams.
4. The last team drawn from the hat is allowed to select two teams just like a normal 8 seed alliance captain and we continue back up in reverse order like a normal serpentine draft.
5. After all alliances have three teams, the remaining 8 team numbers will be placed in a hat and they will be randomly selected by the alliance captains in 1 - 8 order.
6. This will end with each alliance consisting of 4 teams. During elimination play each member of the alliance must play in one of the first two matches of each series. (In practice this means after the first match, an alliance must switch in the team that didn't play in the first round). Alliance captains must turn in a line up card to the head ref prior to each elimination match and may not deviate from that line up for that match.

For the most part this system removes the incentive to seed 9th or 10th because you don't know who will be picking 1st. It also keeps most of the elimination matches closer in score. We also required that the 4th robots play in at least 1 match each round. Again this event was designed to encourage growth in the state and provide teams with a different experience. This is not how all off-seasons should work, and definitely not how regionals should work.

The second off-season I want to talk about is RoboReboot. This was a much smaller event. It started out with 18 robots including a few B robots. The plan was to have 6 alliances of 3 teams and give 1 & 2 a bye. Their ended up being a team that had mechanical problems and wouldn't be able to play in eliminations. When this was discovered myself and Andrew Lynch (head mentor for 2587) decided to pull both our B robots from eliminations to make even alliances and allow all the teams to play. That was the decision we made and it would be perfectly reasonable for teams to make a different choice, countless factors play in to such a decision.

From event to event there are going to be multiple factors that play into how everything is run and in general all you can do if you don't like something is provide constructive feedback to the hosts. If you find out that some part of the event that your team doesn't like will be in place again at future events, you may not want to go to that event again or volunteer with the event and help improve it.

[New Lightning]

Wow! I really like TRI's system for eliminations, keeps things interesting and eliminates incentives to try and throw matches. I really like this system. Is there any other event that uses this system?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

What I'm saying, and I'll be quite clear about this is: If you, as an alliance captain, think that picking your own B robot is the best way to win the event, that is your choice, if it is allowed by the competition. In this case, it was allowed. Therefore, it is the team's prerogative to pick whoever they want to.

In regards to the prestige, I'm well aware of that. Consider this: Prior to last year, Fall Classic didn't even fill up. Last year, it filled up for the first time. This year, the organizers had a decision: One-day event with more teams or two-day event--but most of the teams in L.A. aren't ready for a 2-day offseason. So they opted for two one-day events, back-to-back, with the option to attend both. Teams that wanted to do both could, teams that only wanted to do one could. The robot cap was set per day. Incidentally, it seems that most teams around here prefer Saturday for their one-day events.

I wouldn't say that the competition was diluted--if anything, the matches were more intense on Sunday. You weren't there, so I suggest watching the archived webcasts. (They aren't linked on TBA; you'll have to find the thread for the event.)

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.

For one thing, ya can't count. All four alliances had one pair of twins, even if they were fraternal, and the fifth twin was split between #1 and #4. Anyways, back to the statement I would rather make: True, there are a lot more benefits to playing with other teams. But here's the thing: Maybe those teams either didn't see those, or just wanted to have some fun. It's not your team's place to tell my team that they're doing X wrong, unless they are actually, in point of actual fact (NOT opinion), doing it wrong. You can tell them that that's not the way you'd do it, but they've got to make the final decision on whether they see things the same way.

Regardless of the shortage of teams, it could have been managed better.

So, rather than commenting on CD, are you going to contact SCRRF and tell them that? Not many of them are on CD, or at least I'm not aware that more than one or two are. Just remember, before you contact them, that 1678 has not been to a single Fall Classic, I'm sure for good reasons including travel distance.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just remember, before you contact them, that 1678 has not been to a single Fall Classic, I'm sure for good reasons including travel distance.

Will a former member do? I went with my new team, 5100, as the drive coach. I'll agree with some the above comments that splitting the event into two days, in addition to the number of B-bots, ended up creating some interesting dynamics that discourage me from ever wanting to attend again.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by T^2

Will a former member do? I went with my new team, 5100, as the drive coach. I'll agree with some the above comments that splitting the event into two days, in addition to the number of B-bots, ended up creating some interesting dynamics that discourage me from ever wanting to attend again.

If you're on a new team, that doesn't *quite* count. Now, I will grant that you'll have a lot of the same point of view as your previous team--but a previous team with nearly a decade of experience and a second-year team will have very different points of view of the same event for the most part. I did talk to one of the 5100 mentors as the team was helping tear down the field, and they did have a good time, at least from his point of view.

[Abhishek R]

I echo Allen Gregory's points, there are multiple events in Texas set up to be more inclusive of all teams, the ones I've personally attended being the Texas Robotics Invitational and the Robot Remix. In both of these, the captains are not allowed to pick within the top 8, and TRI had the added restrictions outlined in his post earlier. Having talked to several teams with various backgrounds, from champions like 1477 to the newest rookies in our school district, everyone has had a positive experience with these events.

In addition, we have the 2-day event Texas Robot Roundup, which is based on a purely competitive stance - ever since its incarnation, TRR has provided a great event with some of the most exciting matches I've ever seen. There were a few "B-bots," that were being used by pre-rookie teams to give them a glimpse of what competition is like (note, this is slightly different from the scenario I see being addressed in this thread, however it is similar enough). I believe one or two did make it to eliminations, but again, there wasn't any voiced concerns about this happening or it being any form of injustice to other teams.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Wow! I really like TRI's system for eliminations, keeps things interesting and eliminates incentives to try and throw matches. I really like this system. Is there any other event that uses this system?

I like it too.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by EricH

What I'm saying, and I'll be quite clear about this is: If you, as an alliance captain, think that picking your own B robot is the best way to win the event, that is your choice, if it is allowed by the competition. In this case, it was allowed. Therefore, it is the team's prerogative to pick whoever they want to.

In regards to the prestige, I'm well aware of that. Consider this: Prior to last year, Fall Classic didn't even fill up. Last year, it filled up for the first time. This year, the organizers had a decision: One-day event with more teams or two-day event--but most of the teams in L.A. aren't ready for a 2-day offseason. So they opted for two one-day events, back-to-back, with the option to attend both. Teams that wanted to do both could, teams that only wanted to do one could. The robot cap was set per day. Incidentally, it seems that most teams around here prefer Saturday for their one-day events.

I wouldn't say that the competition was diluted--if anything, the matches were more intense on Sunday. You weren't there, so I suggest watching the archived webcasts. (They aren't linked on TBA; you'll have to find the thread for the event.)


For one thing, ya can't count. All four alliances had one pair of twins, even if they were fraternal, and the fifth twin was split between #1 and #4. Anyways, back to the statement I would rather make: True, there are a lot more benefits to playing with other teams. But here's the thing: Maybe those teams either didn't see those, or just wanted to have some fun. It's not your team's place to tell my team that they're doing X wrong, unless they are actually, in point of actual fact (NOT opinion), doing it wrong. You can tell them that that's not the way you'd do it, but they've got to make the final decision on whether they see things the same way.

So, rather than commenting on CD, are you going to contact SCRRF and tell them that? Not many of them are on CD, or at least I'm not aware that more than one or two are. Just remember, before you contact them, that 1678 has not been to a single Fall Classic, I'm sure for good reasons including travel distance.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Individual teams can't make the decision at these events on how they select alliances that will best promote the goals of FIRST. It's the prerogative of FIRST, regional directors and event organizers who work with FIRST. It's as though you're saying that each NFL team should get to choose what rules they want to play by.

My point about the alliance is that they paired bots from the same team instead of mixing it up. (I wasn't bothering to be precise--I was making a general observation which you confirmed.)

Finally, you're also not getting my point about this thread (and ignoring my earlier post): I'm only using the Fall Classic as an example of a larger issue about how I think many off season event might be organized to better encourage STEM programs. (Note that I didn't use "Fall Classic" in the title, on purpose.) I'm not going to go through one by one contacting each event to ask them to change. CD is the best way to reach a broad audience.

In my three decades of public policy work I've generally found that when someone says that a message is better delivered privately to individuals one by one, they really mean the message may get out of their control, influence events and lead to an outcome that they won't like. I'll keep posting publicly on CD...

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by T^2

Will a former member do? I went with my new team, 5100, as the drive coach. I'll agree with some the above comments that splitting the event into two days, in addition to the number of B-bots, ended up creating some interesting dynamics that discourage me from ever wanting to attend again.

And I saw that 5100, a rookie team that was 4-3, was left out of the elim rounds so that second robots could ally with their teammates. Doesn't sound like 5100 is too encouraged to go back...

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Individual teams can't make the decision at these events on how they select alliances that will best promote the goals of FIRST. It's the prerogative of FIRST, regional directors and event organizers who work with FIRST. It's as though you're saying that each NFL team should get to choose what rules they want to play by.

My point about the alliance is that they paired bots from the same team instead of mixing it up. (I wasn't bothering to be precise--I was making a general observation which you confirmed.)

Finally, you're also not getting my point about this thread (and ignoring my earlier post): I'm only using the Fall Classic as an example of a larger issue about how I think many off season event might be organized to better encourage STEM programs. (Note that I didn't use "Fall Classic" in the title, on purpose.) I'm not going to go through one by one contacting each event to ask them to change. CD is the best way to reach a broad audience.

In my three decades of public policy work I've generally found that when someone says that a message is better delivered privately to individuals one by one, they really mean the message may get out of their control, influence events and lead to an outcome that they won't like. I'll keep posting publicly on CD...

I won't get into the debate since I think pretty much all points have already been stated multiple times but I don't think FIRST should be setting the standards for off seasons. Those are individually managed by offseason coordinators and therefore they should be able to play with whatever rules they want. NFL may make rules for football, but that doesn't mean me and my friends are going to play by exactly those rules.

[MARS_James]

I have had a very long week so sorry for the late response

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I see the off season events as a different type of event than the Regionals and World Championships.

We agree here like I said in my original message offseason are more laid back and fun so we are on the same page.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

I still agree with you though I am unsure what part of my message brought this on.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

Once again no disagreement, still curious as to why I am being paraphrased the credo of an organization that, according to our delphi profiles, I have been involved with more then twice as long as you have.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

If you're not on board with that concept yet, I suggest digging much deeper into the principles of FIRST and why Dean Kamen started this program.

Fixed how to spell Dean's last name for you. Trust me I get this concept, and I have been awarded for it multiple times by FIRST, I apologize if some people see my response thus far, or further on as personal attacks or belittlement but I do not like to be demeaned or patronized especially relating to what a group that has shaped my entire adult life means.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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 think here is where I will stop agreeing with your statements and begin directly disagreeing. Offseason events are NOT official events. Offseasons are independently run events that vary wildly from each other. IRI changed (or fixed) major rules about this game, Panther Prowl added a end game, TRI had a very different way of doing alliance selections, you will never get ALL offseasons to agree to any rule unless explicitly stated in the manual, and even then an event can change the rule. I will come back to this later as I get further into my response but I need to tackle a few more parts before coming back.

You bring up that we need to think of ways to increase involvement of future participants: At our offseasons we had a majority rookie drive team for our second robot, and many other Florida teams also ran with new students, to show them how exciting not only watching but actually competing with a robot can be. One could actually argue that your idea of inclusion has a bigger implication on the regular season, so following your idea of getting more teams to compete, MORT and MORT Beta, as well as Goodrich and More Martians, should gracefully bow out every year of competing in eliminations as they are quite literally taking up a shot for someone other team to attend Championship.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I like the rule of not being able to draft your 2nd robot unless none other are available

Now we get into a logistical/logical problem my team this year built triplets alongside 1251, two competition robots and a practice robot. We took the practice robot to offseason events, should both our teams be unable to select that practice robot or only 179 because we paid for it to be there?

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

What if they legitimately lose? Should a team be punished for being outplayed, breaking down, or just legitimately not syncing with a randomly selected alliance? Or are we now working under the assumption that every team who is in the top 8 near the end of a competition is legitimately one of the top 8 robots at the competition, because anyone who has seen these events play out know that that is not true.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

And here is where I come back to my point above, one of the first things I learned when working on a real world engineering project in a real company is that engineering is a business, now that seems like common sense but sometimes people forget that. If you are going to make a product you are constantly competing to make it better, cheaper, prettier, lighter, and/or cooler then the guy(or company) next to you. Why do I bring this up? because as I said all these off seasons are different and run by different people, if they want to change the rules let teams decide if they want to pay to be there, I even said as much in my original comment. For example if any rules were applied to a second robot to make it different from a normal robot, I wouldn't bring it, I don't want the new students to get confused as to what will happen come the real season, and I don't want to deal with explaining to my students that despite their hard work they have to be segregated and applied different rules to them.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Individual teams can't make the decision at these events on how they select alliances that will best promote the goals of FIRST. It's the prerogative of FIRST, regional directors and event organizers who work with FIRST. It's as though you're saying that each NFL team should get to choose what rules they want to play by.

Are you kidding me? Are you honestly suggesting that teams when making alliances should think about what promotes the goals of FIRST? There is a very good reason as to why their is 2 awards independent of the tournament that veteran teams can receive for the promoting the goals of FIRST and they are announced AFTER the winners, because they are more important. And yes believe it or not each NFL team does get to choose at least what conditions they play by, or have you not noticed that we have stadiums and domes?

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I won't get into the debate since I think pretty much all points have already been stated multiple times but I don't think FIRST should be setting the standards for off seasons. Those are individually managed by offseason coordinators and therefore they should be able to play with whatever rules they want. NFL may make rules for football, but that doesn't mean me and my friends are going to play by exactly those rules.

+1

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

It's the prerogative of FIRST, regional directors and event organizers who work with FIRST.

Not for off-season events. Off-season events are completely separate and the organizers should be able to do whatever they want to do. If you don't like how an event is ran and can't work with the organizers to change it, then just don't go - or start your own event. Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And I saw that 5100, a rookie team that was 4-3, was left out of the elim rounds so that second robots could ally with their teammates. Doesn't sound like 5100 is too encouraged to go back...

Then don't. Aren't there like 4 other off-season events in California alone? I think it's pretty cut and dry. If 5100 had a bad experience then they shouldn't go back.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

Not for off-season events. Off-season events are completely separate and the organizers should be able to do whatever they want to do. If you don't like how an event is ran and can't work with the organizers to change it, then just don't go - or start your own event. Pretty simple.

Seconded. Off-season event organizers should feel free to do what they please at their events. Here in New England we have a variety of events with their own unique game or alliance selection twist: fully random, random first round, random second round, standard serpentine, 1-8/1-8, no picking in the top 8, 18 elimination alliances, etc. There are events some teams prefer not to attend for one reason or another but that is their choice.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

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.

I can't disagree with you more. Again, you're missing my point. This is not a decision that should be left to individual teams. It is a decision that should be made at an organizational level, either the event organizer or at the Regional or FIRST HQ level. Individual teams cannot effectively make an individual "disarmament" decision to avoid making certain alliance decisions. It must be a mutual agreement. At the international level, that's why we have treaties--actions by individual nations trying to influence world events are rarely effective unless there is a treaty.

As you well know, it is almost pointless to email individual event organizers--they'll simply blow me off. And I can't physically go to discuss this issue with each and every event organizer. CD is where issues can be aired publicly and where a larger

I'm actually not trying to call out individual teams, because teams usually will respond to the rules and intent of the event organizer. I'm a bit unhappy that certain teams chose to select their own B bot, but the event organizers had not stepped in to prohibit that. So they did what they thought was in their own best interest. This is an issue at other events--I just chose a salient recent example. Unfortunately what was in an individual team's best interest was not in the best interest of the region as a whole in my opinion. (See T^2's comment above for confirmation--and I know him personally and know how extremely dedicated he is.) As a professional economist I frequently must address the divergence between individual self interest and societal best interest. This is just such a case.