Alliance picks declined

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by snoman

In the few I have watched the #1 alliance did not win. This is just a observation I have no hard data at this point

Data for 2015:



The one event that the 7th seed won was Finger Lakes, won by 4039, 3015, and 378, who are all excellent teams. IIRC 4039 was broken for a while during qualifiers, so they were a much lower seed (7th) than what they could have been.

[catmanjake]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Data for 2015:



The one event that the 7th seed won was Finger Lakes, won by 4039, 3015, and 378, who are all excellent teams. IIRC 4039 was broken for a while during qualifiers, so they were a much lower seed (7th) than what they could have been.

This is great data. Thanks.

[CVR]

Originally Posted by catmanjake

This is great data. Thanks.

We also had to decline 2228 (#5 captain) who was great, but we thought pairing with 3015 and 378 was the perfect alliance to have a shot at finals. The decline was a stressful decision because we needed both teams to have the best chance at gold, and either could have been picked before we got the chance. I think this move was only successful because of the depth and parity of skill of the teams at FLR. There weren't really any huge outliers so any alliance had a shot. But 2015 was a pretty distinct year for alliance selection strategy and its effect on finishing position. This and years other than 2015 will have different success rates for low ranked alliances.

[Cam877]

Happened at MAR Champs last year. #1 seed(316) picked #2 seed(1640) and 1640 declined. 316's alliance actually went on to win.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cam877

Happened at MAR Champs last year. #1 seed(316) picked #2 seed(1640) and 1640 declined. 316's alliance actually went on to win.

2014 MAR Champs as well. #1 seed (2180) was declined by 225, 1640, and 2590. 2180's alliance reached the semifinals. The 2590's #7 alliance (which included your team ) won the event.