A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

4) With these objectives in mind, I suggest these changes to be used by event organizers (I can understand the concern about event autonomy, but FIRST can issue guidelines):

a) Offseason event should decide the intent of their event as to the level of competitiveness. IRI and Chezy Champs stand as the most competitive. Others like the Rookie Rumble will decide that maximum participation among all teams is the objective.

b) in the less competitive events, to maximize the interaction among teams and the ability for the greatest possible number of teams to play in the eliminations, alliance captains would not be allowed to choose their own second robot unless there are no other 'bots running.

c) Another great option is to require alliance captains to teams other than other alliance captains. I specified rule changes above that would dissuade teams from losing late matches to avoid become an alliance captain.

[snip]

As to contacting event organizers, I am encouraging other teams who see the benefits of this approach to contact their chosen events and persuade those events to use these rules. It is not my place to be the event "police" and monitor what each event is doing. I used the Fall Classic as an EXAMPLE of a situation and I don't feel its my responsibility to follow up with them. (I follow up with events that we compete in where I think that changes would be beneficial.) So please do not ask me to contact anyone about this comment.

First you say FIRST should be issuing guidelines, then you say teams should persuade events to do this.

Off-seasons are unofficial. That's the whole point.

FIRST might provide a field but if I felt like running the 2014 game with 17 balls in play at once and full-field ramming allowed then that's our prerogative at our offseason.

It's up to the teams who buy in to that event to decide if that's what they want to spend their offseason budget on.

Now if I made that rule and teams decided not to come because of it, that's my feedback right there. Maybe the next year I won't make such sweeping and drastic changes.

Same goes for what you're proposing. Some offseasons prioritize competitiveness at whatever cost, some prioritize getting everyone to play in elims, and some balance in the middle somewhere.

What you aren't quite getting is that you can't enforce a standard across offseasons. There's just not a realistic way to do that, nor should there be.

You have certainly stated your opinion, over and over - but the fact is that unless event organizers are getting specific feedback (or teams aren't giving them their money), they're going to make their rules as they choose.

And no, I'm not talking about 'feedback' in a big Chief thread- I'm talking about direct emails or conversations with the people running a specific event.

If you'd like an offseason where teams aren't allowed to pick their second robots, then I suggest you start forming a planning committee and make that your main rule.

If you see an offseason near you that you think has the 'wrong' rules, then just don't go.

--

Side thought: Are we not recognizing that a 'B' team is still kids who might not have had drive/pit/scouting experience unless they were at that event? How is excluding them okay?