Week 2 Live Discussion

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

7) Running the Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals using the same point-average system was brilliant. No longer was the 8th seed forced to be humiliated by the 1st seed. I never understood that system designed to maintain the original seed order. Now all 8 alliances get to start from scratch and show their capabilities and endurance, just like Olympic events.

This is by far my least favorite aspect of this game. In previous years, I could root for my team to win, and still enjoy the other playoff matches. I could cheer for rookie teams or teams that I have talked with in the pits.

This year though, I root for my team to score well, and I root against every other team in the playoffs. Until my team gets knocked out of the playoffs, I will be rooting for teams to accidentally knock over their stacks, and I hate that.

There are many good reasons for the 1v8, 2v7, etc... bracket in a WL game:

• Seeding higher, in theory, will always gives you an easier schedule. With any other system, it would become more advantageous to try to "game" your seed to end up in the slot that has the easiest (or easier) schedule. With the 1v8,2v7, etc... structure, 1 seed will generally have the easiest bracket, so teams only have to try to win. If a ranking system ever encourages teams to throw matches, whether or not any teams actually do this, I would say that it has a flaw.
• The matches get continuously more intense due to higher quality of teams advancing. Would you prefer that the 1 alliance "humiliates" the 8 alliance in the quarterfinals or in the finals? There is usually a buildup of excitement right up to the finals. The two best alliances at the event, going head to head for victory, has to happen in the finals.
• With wildcard slots and the district point system, the best teams need to have a chance to advance high in the competition. It would not be fair to either the 2 seed or the 1 seed if they went head to head right away, since both teams will, on average, not go as far in the competition, and thus have a worse chance of getting district qualifying points or wildcard slots.
• It is standard in most other sports. I can't even name a WL sport that doesn't use this structure. Thus, it is easy to explain to spectators, friends, and family. I have had some family members come to FRC competitions for the past 3 years, and I bet some of them still don't understand our crazy serpentine draft, but they all understand this tournament structure.

In a WL tournament structure, there is no reasonable alternative to the 1v8, 2v7, etc ... system. Also, nobody is forcing the 8 seed to get humiliated by the 1 seed. 8 seeds beat 1 seeds about 1 in 12 times in 2014*, I would hardly call that forced humiliation.

*http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3046

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

There are many good reasons for the 1v8, 2v7, etc... bracket in a WL game:

• Seeding higher, in theory, will always gives you an easier schedule. With any other system, it would become more advantageous to try to "game" your seed to end up in the slot that has the easiest (or easier) schedule. With the 1v8,2v7, etc... structure, 1 seed will generally have the easiest bracket, so teams only have to try to win. If a ranking system ever encourages teams to throw matches, whether or not any teams actually do this, I would say that it has a flaw.
• The matches get continuously more intense due to higher quality of teams advancing. Would you prefer that the 1 alliance "humiliates" the 8 alliance in the quarterfinals or in the finals? There is usually a buildup of excitement right up to the finals. The two best alliances at the event, going head to head for victory, has to happen in the finals.
• With wildcard slots and the district point system, the best teams need to have a chance to advance high in the competition. It would not be fair to either the 2 seed or the 1 seed if they went head to head right away, since both teams will, on average, not go as far in the competition, and thus have a worse chance of getting district qualifying points or wildcard slots.
• It is standard in most other sports. I can't even name a WL sport that doesn't use this structure. Thus, it is easy to explain to spectators, friends, and family. I have had some family members come to FRC competitions for the past 3 years, and I bet some of them still don't understand our crazy serpentine draft, but they all understand this tournament structure.

In a WL tournament structure, there is no reasonable alternative to the 1v8, 2v7, etc ... system. Also, nobody is forcing the 8 seed to get humiliated by the 1 seed. 8 seeds beat 1 seeds about 1 in 12 times in 2014*, I would hardly call that forced humiliation.

*http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3046

I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions here.
1. With the 1-8, 2-7. etc. System, the two best teams will not necessarily compete in the finals since the 1 seed alliance and 2 seed alliance are not always the best teams. If, for example, #1 seed is the best and #5 seed is the second best, they will face off in the semi-finals and only one will compete in the finals. A great example is the 2014 Curie Division, where the #1 seed Cheesy Poofs went undefeated throughout the division finals, except for one match - Semifinals 1-1 against 118, 359, and 4334. 118 captained the #5 seed alliance, yet I believe they were the second best alliance in the finals. In my opinion, it would have been more exciting had the 254 alliance played the 118 alliance in the finals, which would have happened had the advancement system been like this year.

2. Yes, usually the #1 seed destroys the #8 seed (at least at regionals and districts), but the #8 seed is often better than some of the other alliances. Why should a good #8 seed be knocked out by #1 in the quarterfinals if they are better than 1/2 of the other alliances? With the new system this year, this problem is remedied. At the Indianapolis district event last weekend, the #8 alliance held the highest quarterfinals average (until the last match when #1 got above them), and could have even advanced to the finals if not for a yellow card. Using last year's structure, they would have lost the quarterfinals and been finished simply for having to face the #1 seed first.

[who716]

at NE pioneer valley, showed an example of what extensive scouting can do. on Friday 2168 wasn't highly impressive, they struggled alot. many team clearly ended up cutting them from there scouting that night, we always give teams at-least one shot on Saturday for improvement. there first match out on Saturday was impressive and was 100% better then Friday so we continued scouting them and by the end of Qualifying they were 3 on our list of teams.

come alliance selections we were a number 8 alliance and 2168 was still available for our third pick, we told our alliance captain that this was an absolute steal to grab as a partner but they had no info on them, and as the alliance captain they made the decision to pick someone else. 2168 ended up being picked as the 3rd member of the 6 alliance.
2168 ended up being the only team at the event to get a 3 tote stack autonomous which they showed off for the first time in eliminations, a well as being able to cap up too 5 high which wasn't previously shown. 2168 ended up being THE CRUCIAL piece of this alliance and propelled them to a blue banner. for sure on of the best robots at the event.
for a team with this capability to fall to a late 3rd round pick goes to show teams shouldn't stop scouting Friday night.

GREAT job to 2168 well deserved blue-banner for a very very very long weekend for you guys! looking forward to competing at Rhode island with you in a couple weeks.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'd say the SF at Mt. Olive are pretty close right now.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'd say the SF at Mt. Olive are pretty close right now.

Spyder seems to be ~1 hr behind -- maybe field staff forgot to reset a clock last night (Spring Forward)?

Anyway Sean, I like your example -- playoffs are exciting this year, especially semis. Average scoring really improves this, IMO.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'd say the SF at Mt. Olive are pretty close right now.
<img>

NO ONE WILL HAVE THE SAME AVERAGE, THEY SAID

NO ONE WILL EVER NEED THE TIEBREAKERS, THEY SAID

They actually didn't need them at the end of semifinals all 4 averages were unique with the 3 and 6 alliances moving to finals...

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Spyder seems to be ~1 hr behind -- maybe field staff forgot to reset a clock last night (Spring Forward)?

Anyway Sean, I like your example -- playoffs are exciting this year, especially semis. Average scoring really improves this, IMO.

It varies a lot from event-to-event, just like any other year. Some of them come right down to the wire. Others have matches that are basically formalities, where the only way the standings change is if an alliance completely faceplants. We've already seen quite a few competitions where SF6 is basically just a finals warm-up.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

I am seeing a lot of robots struggle when the totes are too tightly packed. If only if only...

RedShift Busting up the Landfill

We're thinking of adding this to ours.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions here.
1. With the 1-8, 2-7. etc. System, the two best teams will not necessarily compete in the finals since the 1 seed alliance and 2 seed alliance are not always the best teams. If, for example, #1 seed is the best and #5 seed is the second best, they will face off in the semi-finals and only one will compete in the finals. A great example is the 2014 Curie Division, where the #1 seed Cheesy Poofs went undefeated throughout the division finals, except for one match - Semifinals 1-1 against 118, 359, and 4334. 118 captained the #5 seed alliance, yet I believe they were the second best alliance in the finals. In my opinion, it would have been more exciting had the 254 alliance played the 118 alliance in the finals, which would have happened had the advancement system been like this year.

2. Yes, usually the #1 seed destroys the #8 seed (at least at regionals and districts), but the #8 seed is often better than some of the other alliances. Why should a good #8 seed be knocked out by #1 in the quarterfinals if they are better than 1/2 of the other alliances? With the new system this year, this problem is remedied. At the Indianapolis district event last weekend, the #8 alliance held the highest quarterfinals average (until the last match when #1 got above them), and could have even advanced to the finals if not for a yellow card. Using last year's structure, they would have lost the quarterfinals and been finished simply for having to face the #1 seed first.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The section you quoted is my defense of the 1v8, 2v7, etc... system in a WL game. This section was in response to PhilBot's point 7, specifically, this line:

Originally Posted by PhilBot

I never understood that system designed to maintain the original seed order.

I was merely saying that there is no reasonable alternative to this system if each match has a winner and a loser. If you do know of a better system for these types of games, I would be curious to know what it is, so please share.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by TDav540

I agree totally. 3360 is definitely quite smooth and will definitely have a 20-pt auto by playoffs. One thing they have to be careful about is losing their stack when they are building it in the landfill. I watched their first match and it looked a little tipsy. But otherwise they're definitely going to be playing late into Saturday.

We had trouble at GTR central, but we are currently working on something for Montreal in week 4... Glad to see so much people talking about our team!

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

RedShift Busting up the Landfill

We're thinking of adding this to ours.

We've got one of them. I was beginning to wonder if anyone saw value in the idea besides us.

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The section you quoted is my defense of the 1v8, 2v7, etc... system in a WL game. This section was in response to PhilBot's point 7.

I was merely saying that there is no reasonable alternative to this system if each match has a winner and a loser. If you do know of a better system for these types of games, I would be curious to know what it is, so please share.

I appreciate what you are saying. It's what's standard for a WL system. As a totally non-sports person (and I mean NO sports at all), the first time I went to an FRC competition, I expected #1 to play #2, #3 to play #4 and down the line. I understand now that this method makes the top 2 teams mad, because one of them will be eliminated, ahead of a lower team.

What about 1:5, 2:6, 3:7 and 4:8 matchups. This way at least they wouldn't be quite so biased...

But since this isn't likely to happen, I'm ecstatic to see the non win-loss system given a try. This numerical ranking system works for a ton of sports, so why not FIRST.

BTW, FTC does not use the serpentine selection model.
They go 1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4

[eddie12390]

Coopertition is why I have trust issues.

[Gdeaver]

Week 2 is over. So the question I have is --- Have the platform RC wars begun? Were there any districts or regional where in eliminations or qualifications Battles for the platform Rc's happened. We had the beginning skirmishes at Hatboro-Horsham week 1.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

RedShift Busting up the Landfill

We're thinking of adding this to ours.

As primarily a landfill robot with a roller intake, this would make it harder for us, not easier. We've practiced many times with the landfill in the configuration it is.