"Fixing" matches

[Jason Morrella]

having been very involved in discussing this situation with MANY coaches on many teams, and ALSO having been quoted a few times in this thread, let me clarify a couple of things....

1. I found one earlier post to be quite important, at least in terms of helping to define the discussion. What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of "collusion" - not "fixing" or "cheating". I completely understand the views of all the people who are really against agreements - but it seems the emotion involved is causing people to use words which may imply that those who disagree with them are bad people, which is just ridiculous. These agreements are helping teams seed higher, there is no doubt about that, and I very much understand the debate. But "fixing" a match would be fixing who wins or loses and "cheating" would be breaking a rule. Just my opinion - but I think the discussion should be about what teams feel about "collusion" or "agreements", not "fixing or cheating".

2. One of the absolute best parts of being involved with FIRST is getting to meet and know so many impressive people on so many teams. I try to go out of my way at events I help organize to listen to and discuss any issue, suggestion, compliment, or complaint. In this debate, I think all those who wanted to discuss their point with me will readily admit that I went out of my way to present both points of view and try to remain objective. I feel it's important that I clarify a few things attributed to me or FIRST which may have been taken out of context:
(sorry Mike Soukup - I've tried to keep long posts to a minimum this year, but don't think I can do so here)


clarifications:

- I went out of my way to say to each mentor I spoke to that I could not and would not make an "official" judgement on behalf of FIRST about "agreements", that I was giving my opinion since they were asking for it

- I DID tell a number of mentors that this was a decision for teams to make, not FIRST. Some disagreed, most agreed - regardless, that was my opinion.

- I NEVER said I found these agreements "acceptable", I said there was no actual rule against it.

- I DID say that teams should calmly and respectfully share the same concerns and views they were telling me with the teams they were complaining about. I did say that speaking as a "teacher", not FIRST - I thought it was a great opportunity for students and teams to solve an issue without FIRST - that they could solve it with discussion, diplomacy, and consensus instead of anger and resentment. This has been an issue at some events while not even coming up at some others. The teams in Arizona decided to address it a certain way, and on Saturday it didn't seem to be an issue.

- I NEVER said I or FIRST "condoned" the practice of agreements. I said we would not make a judgement either way. I did point out that FIRST could not police this even if we wanted to, so it really was a decision totally up to the teams.

- I DID say that the practice of making these agreements is mainly a qualifying round issue, and would not ever come into play in the playoffs.
One other observation I made, is that the teams at Sacramento and Phoenix who seeded high partly by making these agreements, and thus were the focus of most of the debate, won most of their matches and also won the majority of the matches in which no agreements were made/stacks were all knocked down. Granted, that has nothing to do with the debate over "is it right or wrong", but those teams would have made the playoffs either way (IMHO).

- I DID say that if I was still coaching a team, I personally wouldn't make one of these agreements. I also said that it's up to each team and I thought some people were getting a little too angry and emotional about these agreements. I DID say that while I would not do it, I wouldn't consider those who did to be "bad" teams or people - I thought those statements were clearly based on emotion and going a bit far. I also said that this is not, in my opinion, as black and white as most are making it out to be on both sides.

- I DID say that while I myself see valid arguments on boths sides of the "agreement" issue, that I would be MUCH more troubled by petty and ungracious behavior such as: teams purposely trying to damage another teams robot, teams agreeing who would win or lose a match, teams "tricking or deceiving" other teams, teams saying they'll get revenge on teams who make decisions they don't agree with or hold a grudge/not help teams for years to come because they seeded ahead of them, teams cheating and breaking rules, and so on.

- I DID say that I totally understood why many teams have a problem with "agreements", but that I wouldn't go so far as to brand it as "fixing" or "cheating" unless those teams were agreeing on who would win or were directly breaking a rule.

- I DID say that if any of the teams who were making these agreements to seed high actually won an event (which I don't think they have yet), that they would have still had to demonstrate that their robot and alliance outplayed the other playoff robots without any agreements being made. My "point" was that while this practice may help some teams seed higher, it would not help them IN the playoffs. (yes, I know one could argue it may/may not have helped them get "into" the playoffs - I'm saying they still have to outplay the playoff teams to advance further)

- I NEVER said I was "enjoying" what was going on, those in Sacramento and Phoenix know I was not (kind of felt like the character in the Airplane movies who had all the people with hammers, bats, boxing gloves, and other weapons lined up in the aisle waiting to "speak" to them. ).
I said that it is an issue which is up to teams to analyze and decide how they want to play the game. I said that the debate at hand is a real life decision making process which is a great excercise for students to experience and work through now - since they will face many such decisions after high school. I said that I knew some in FIRST felt this was a unique opportunity for teams and that this discussion in and of itself (albeit hard and/or awkward) was great for students & teams to work out for themselves. One coach told me "while he disagreed with teams who were making the agreements, the only way he'd actually lose respect for a team is if they made an agreement/promise and broke it - that those teams should question their values" (it had happened to his team in Phoenix, which probably helped sour them on the concept). His point was that making the agreement was "one heck of a life lesson for his team, and that making the agreement had actually hurt them" the interesting point was that on Saturday he told me he "was glad FIRST left this decision about agreements up to the teams", that "watching his students discuss both sides of the debate amongst themselves and other teams, and then decide how they wanted to play" would be one of his proudest memories of the last couple years he had been in FIRST.

- I did say that "if EVERY team and EVERY match had these agreements, it would be bad for the competition in my opinion". This was slightly taken out of context in an earlier post.

- None of this was a total shock to FIRST. Those who wrote the rules went over any and every aspect to the game they could think of - and they did discuss this exact scenario. FIRST was and is aware of this debate. As always, FIRST provides a game and rules, and the teams ultimately determine how they will end up playing the game. As many have pointed out, FIRST is about WAY more than just robots and winning.

- I know some of the mentors were frustrated because they really wanted me (in Arizona or Sacramento) or FIRST to take a side. Instead, I tried to present each side the other point of view and encourage the teams to work together to at least discuss the issue. I hope each of those mentors know that I really appreciated their coming forward with their concerns and thank them for their dedication to not only their students but the overall quality of the FIRST community.

Sorry about the length - but since this issue is clearly very important to a number of people, I felt obligated to clarify my position/thoughts expressed at two of the events which experienced this debate.

Good luck to everyone in week 3.

Jason