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

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by RunawayEngineer

This is amazing to me.
I thought that in previous years, the #1 seed won close to 90% of events. If anything, I would have thought the QA ranking would give even more power to the #1 seed.

not if you can make a late pick alliance that works strong as a team; usually 2 stackers and a capper/RC grabber... the QA thing just means that the ranking more reflect the ability of the robot to score by itself, and doesnt allow for too much carrying by getting with good teams

[Joseph1825]

There is something that bugs me in this discussion each time it comes up; when people say "Don't bring the top down, bring the bottom up." In this situation those two things are exactly the same. This is a zero sum game, when the bottom alliances have a higher chance of winning the top alliances have a lower chance of winning. So the real question should be, how likely should the top alliances be to win, and how likely should the bottom alliances be to win?
However, the best changes can be ones that don't affect the win rate. I think the new wild card rules this year are great and help more deserving teams qualify for Champs without skewing the win rate at regionals too far either direction.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Joseph1825

There is something that bugs me in this discussion each time it comes up; when people say "Don't bring the top down, bring the bottom up." In this situation those two things are exactly the same. This is a zero sum game, when the bottom alliances have a higher chance of winning the top alliances have a lower chance of winning.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but that's not what "zero sum game" means. In a zero sum game, every point gained comes at the expense of someone else. With Recycle Rush, we're talking about a game where cooperation is explicitly able to conjure points out of thin air and award them to everyone involved.

Bringing the top down limits the total number of points scored. Raising the bottom boosts the total points without artificially inflating scores. Neither of them is a redistribution of a fixed amount of scoring wealth.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but that's not what "zero sum game" means. In a zero sum game, every point gained comes at the expense of someone else. With Recycle Rush, we're talking about a game where cooperation is explicitly able to conjure points out of thin air and award them to everyone involved.

Bringing the top down limits the total number of points scored. Raising the bottom boosts the total points without artificially inflating scores. Neither of them is a redistribution of a fixed amount of scoring wealth.

He's talking about the regional win rate - if through some rule change, the #1 alliance started winning 45% of the time, it means the other alliances would gain. There's only 1 regional champion at each event.

[MMmmDUDE]

If you don't allow the number 1 team to pick who they want, what is the point of being number 1?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Bongle

He's talking about the regional win rate - if through some rule change, the #1 alliance started winning 45% of the time, it means the other alliances would gain.

I can just barely read his note that way. Thanks for the explanation.

There's only 1 regional champion at each event.

Wildcards mean that's not the whole story. I think they do a good job of addressing the potential for one unusually dominant alliance to shut out everyone else.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Sacramento also is sending 7 teams. Fortunately 1671 which seeded 2nd and has a great robot qualified through Chairman's although they got knocked out by a small margin in the semis. There were 3 wildcards in the final, and another generated by our Rookie All Star 5458. In fact, 701 got its 2ND wildcard bid after making finals at CVR and benefiting from 254's wildcard.

After the Sac Regional it started dawning on me that they should probably revise the wild card to bring it into the semis. Sac could've sent 9 more teams to Champs, but with previous wins and wild cards, only 4 more teams were qualified, even with those wild cards! 5 spots gone. If 1671 didn't win chairman's, it would've been a huge bummer, that robot is so unique and so competitive.

[cmrnpizzo14]

For the record, the 7 seed at FLR right now is putting up a huge fight in finals. One more match but they could take the regional from the 1 seed.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

For the record, the 7 seed at FLR right now is putting up a huge fight in finals. One more match but they could take the regional from the 1 seed.

4039 from Hamilton, ON captained the winning #7 alliance, and took the RCA.

[SpaceBiz]

If the solution to this problem really is districts, should first switch over to them faster?

(They might actually be. At the greater DC regional today, they had a meeting about switching to districts. I assume this means the "Greater DC Area" will or possibly will switch next year)

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by SpaceBiz

If the solution to this problem really is districts, should first switch over to them faster?

(They might actually be. At the greater DC regional today, they had a meeting about switching to districts. I assume this means the "Greater DC Area" will or possibly will switch next year)

My understanding is that the process has been started in several different areas . Making the change is a pretty involved process, since the number of events in an area usually at least doubles, so a lot more volunteers are needed. Minnesota is one place where it seems like they have the teams to do it, but I have heard several times that they don't think they have enough volunteers yet to make the jump. One thing that might help speed up the adoption of districts is the success of Indiana this season, with only 49 teams. If it's considered to work well at a smaller scale than the other current districts, we might see a few more districts of that size to pop up fairly quickly.

[karanesu]

I don't think the number one should be allowed to pick the number two. I feel like it gives them a rather unfair advantage. If you put the two toughest teams together, they're pretty much guaranteed to win. Sure, they earned their spot in the rankings, but if you predetermine the winners, then what's the point of having elimination matches to begin with? Where's the fun and fairness in that?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by karanesu

I don't think the number one should be allowed...

...what's the point of having elimination matches to begin with? Where's the fun and fairness in that?

The fairness is built into our rules and schedule -- it starts at Kickoff every year.

The fun is in playing by those rules and seeing who wins.

If the #1 alliance wins most of the time, that makes it even more exciting when a #7 alliance pulls out the win, like at FLR this weekend.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by 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.

I haven't read the whole thread, but in 2013, in the Northern lights regional, there were 5 turn downs for the number one alliance. I know this isn't exactly a representation of worlds, but my point is still valid; sometimes you simply need to build your own alliance.

[Edit] After reading the thread: I want to piggyback off of what another mentor on 876 said:

Originally Posted by BJT

The spirit of FIRST can mean a lot of things. One of them I think is good honest competition and being rewarded for being the best. Penalizing the top 4 or 8 teams for their success would cause a lot of messy unintended consequences no matter how many feel-good terms we use to describe it.

Key phrase in this post (as I see): messy unintended consequences, and as it was brought up in a previous post:

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer

Then the Wildcard system came in, and there was a change almost overnight. No more boos at Alliance Selections! People were actually cheering during Eliminations! Some prominent posters on CD who were quite anti-1114/2056 suddenly became some of their biggest supporters. Teams actually got way better because suddenly, they didn't have to beat 1114/2056 (an incredibly daunting task), they just had to beat everyone else (still daunting, but way more manageable).

If anything allowing 1 to pick 2 and so on is good for FRC. With wildcards implemented good teams with amazing robots can do their thing, not being thrown off of their game by being handicapped for their success, not feeling lash back because they are good. Besides a team can only hold one spot to worlds anyway, if they win again it gets passed on to another team. And while it sucks to lose in the finals, if the winning alliance members already hold spots the playing field is leveled. Even if you are not walking away from a regional/district with a blue banner you are still walking out of there with a ticket for worlds. Is that so bad?
If you a "middle" team this still plays in your favor, there are eight second pick spots per event any one of which could get you into the finals for a win. Then there are several wildcards. Why wouldn't you try hard in more than one aspect of the competition? There are so many ways to win that you can't just get hung up on one.

-Skye

[stjonl]

The number one seed picking the number two seed was very common several years ago. Having that first pick is a reward all teams should strive for, and should not be limited in any way.

Before this year, the games we played for the last few years have trended for an alliance made up of robots with some different capabilities and strategies to be a strong alliance. This year being an all offense game, it’s a tall order to beat the two best teams when they are together on the same alliance. Limiting who the number one seed (or any seed) can pick, in any way, will cause problems.

With the current point system the way it is (and it's pretty good to start with), there is very little reason why (like one point) the number two seed would not accept the invite from the number one seed.

If there is going to be a change, you need to offer the other top seed alliance captain’s a reason to decline a higher seeded team invite. The only idea I currently have is to give the alliance captain’s, something like 2 or 3 points, each time their alliance advances in the playoff/elimination round. This idea is going to add a few more points to the maximum points available, but in my opinion, advancing alliance captains will have earned them and it just might mix up the alliance selection picks a little. Declining a higher alliance captain is not a bad thing; it only means the declining team wants to form their own alliance. This idea should make more teams willing to give it a try to be an alliance captain, because of the additional points possible.