Should the Number One seed be Alloud to pick the Number Two seed?

[SpaceBiz]

Ok, more so in the game this year, but it seems the first seed alliances who select the second seed are winning every regional. Is it just me or does it seem like this is not really in the spirit of FIRST?

If the two best teams almost always win together, why let them do it every single time? It makes it really hard, or at least overwhelmingly unlikely, for the number 7 or 8 eliminations alliance to win, while one lucky team that gets picked by the number 1 alliance in the second round basically gets a free ticket to worlds?

A perfect example of this is 1114 and 2056 at the waterloo regional. Their elim alliance scored about double that of the seccond best alliance.

Think about that.

1114 and 2056 would have both possibly made the finals each in an alliance by themselves. And the rules allow them to be in the same alliance together.

I think the number one through four seeded teams should not be allowed to pick each other. Thoughts?

See post 22 for the part of the argument I forgot.

(This post in no way represents the views of team 2537 as a whole. It is only an opinion of one of its members)

[faust1706]

This happens just about every year at many competitions. It goes away at st louis. Many teams deny higher seeds to form their own alliance, actually. The most denials I saw in a row were 3.

[Joe G.]

Upsets can and do happen all the time (and with the playoff system as it is, they seem quite common this year), and anything else leads to sandbagging in quals. The #1 seed has earned the right to play with who they'd like to.

[maxxman]

If you are the number 1 seed you deserve to have the best chance to win the regional. If the way to victory is choosing to pick the #2 seed i see no problem with that.

It's a perk of being on one of the best teams in the world I guess

[TDav540]

Actually they haven't won EVERY regional. I agree with you, they have won a large proportion of them. However, Dallas had 118 (3-seed, 2nd Alliance Captain) win there. Additionally, at Virginia (where the 1st-seeded 1156 picked 2nd-seeded 1287), the second and third alliances were the two that participated in the finals.

I don't disagree that there are a large number of times where this does occur, but I suspect (just my speculation, I haven't run any numbers) that the difference between one-seeded teams winning this year is not that different from previous years.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by SpaceBiz

Ok, more so in the game this year,

I don't think anything is different about Recycle Rush compared to previous games in this regard.

Perhaps you could argue that the rankings are more accurate so that the #2 seed is more likely to be the second best robot, although some may disagree.

Telling an alliance captain to pick something other than the best robot available to execute their strategy seems contradictory to the "competition" aspect of FRC.

[orangemoore]

You take out the competition by limiting the picks of the 1-4th seeded alliance. By doing so you make it seem that having a good robot is a problem. They built the robots to be in those seeds they should get to pick who they want.

FRC is a competition after all.

[carpedav000]

That is just one instance of that happening, usually elimination scores are much closer than that. 1114 and 2056 have a history of being in an alliance together at regionals where the two are competing. I do, however, think that your suggestion would make alliance selection more interesting.

[GeeTwo]

And if there were such a rule, would it encourage the second best team to dumb it down to fifth place? There's no need for any rule that encourages teams to play below their abilities.

[Abhishek R]

It's a competition...the number one and two seeds earned their spots (moreso in this game due to the ranking system) and have the right to pick whoever they want. If anything, it would probably just encourage sandbagging/throwing matches.

[tStano]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

If anything, it would probably just encourage sandbagging/throwing matches.

If one were interested, it would be unbelievably easy to sandbag this year too, seeing as you can just knock over your own stacks, making the only points that could possibly be scored by non-sandbagging alliance partners coopertition/unprocessed litter/landfill litter. And if you wanted, you could block the coop step pretty easily.

[SpaceBiz]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

And if there were such a rule, would it encourage the second best team to dumb it down to fifth place? There's no need for any rule that encourages teams to play below their abilities.

I don't personally think the second best robot at the competition would tank it's performance just to get on an alliance with the number 1 seed. All teams this good I have encountered embrace gracious professionalism and cooperation in full, and I don't think a team this good would unanimously decide to ditch the spirit of FIRST to more likely get on the number one alliance. (Because again, the number one would also fully embrace the spirit of FIRST so no back door deals would be made)

[Botsup]

Allowed NOT aloud........ (alloud isn't even a word.....)

[Owen Busler]

At NVTVR last weekend number one ranked 303 picked number two 2852 as our first pick. We lost in the semi finals. Granted it was in part to our robot having electrical problems and shutting of in the third match, but its not always 1 and 2.

[SpaceBiz]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

It's a competition...the number one and two seeds earned their spots (moreso in this game due to the ranking system) and have the right to pick whoever they want. If anything, it would probably just encourage sandbagging/throwing matches.

Isn't picking from any of the 5 minus teams still a huge advantage? Plus extra strategic depth would be added to alliance selection.