|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
at sacramento we were either 13th or 14th i forget but people picked a lot under us. Didnt turn out so badly though because were then went to be the 2nd pick of the #3 alliance.
|
|
#47
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
Yar, we were ranked 14th/40 at the end of qualifications at buckeye, and we were totally overlooked, but oh, well what can you do?
|
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
First, teams usually (but not always) have a reason to pick from below the top ranked teams. For example, in 2003 at Nationals along with team 27 (who picked us) we picked team 192 for our alliance even though they were close to last place because we knew they had fixed their robot.
We have an extensive scouting team. On Friday night, we create a preliminary list of teams from 1-24ish. We recognize that seed has little to do with actual robot ability. On Saturday morning we change our list based on performance that day. If we notice that a team that was capping one per match on friday suddenly is capping 3 per match, they will move up on our list. We try hard to find that team that is overlooked. In 2003 and 2004 at SVR we were really fortunate that 852, an awesome team, was not picked in the first round. In 2004, if we had not been picked by another seeded team, we would have picked 852 as our first pick. This year, we picked 22 as the overlooked team since they had not driven well during the qualifying matches, but trusting that they could cap at least 2 per match. During the playoffs, their driving skill increased exponentially. We completely ignore the list of seeds when we create our list. This year, we created our list based on complementability with our robot, average points scored by that robot only in each of its matches, reliability, strength of drivetrain, and avoidance of penalties. Creating our 24 team ranking of teams is more an art than a science, but it helps us know who to pick next. Whatever team we pick (or are picked by), we celebrate because they are on our list and play our best to win. Good luck to everybody! |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
Quote:
|
|
#50
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
The highest we seeded without getting drafted was 22nd in Annapolis. This was mostly due to the fact that our a gear in our gear boxes broke during our final match. We weren't sure that we would fix it in time and we let other teams know this fact.
|
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
As Matt D stated, when looking for alliance partners, we use scouting, and don't look at the seedings. We look for partners that compliment our abilities.
One interesting fact is that at Nationals last year (I don't recall the division), the number one seed sat out and let the "lower" seeds play most of the matches. Highest seeds are not always the most competitve bots, and higher seeds do not always "fit" best in a team. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
It's called marketing. A company can make the best product in the would but, if they can't market it they'll go bankrupt. First is no different. In fact First is a microcosm of the business world. I know how it feels. We were 13th at Drexel in 2004 and didn't get selected. This year we were 13th again at Chesapeake and got in at 8th seed. We were lucky because our marketing effort was lacking again this year. I believe we picked the teams that had come to us with a plan. We were persuaded by their efforts.
Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
Marketing Marketing Marketing is right. Our team was picked 2nd by the 8th alliance at NJ and then 2nd by the 1st alliance at Buckeye. That may not seem like a big difference but at NJ we were lucky to be picked at all. We had barely talked to any of the teams in the top 8 and we were a low key team so we went mostly unnoticed. At Buckeye we made ourselves be known right from the start because we actually had fans cheering in the stands (An unfortunate rarity for us). Also, we started talking to the teams that we thought we would make a good alliance with. Thus the teams we wanted to be picked by knew who we were while the other teams had to base their knowledge on their own scouting. We wound up slipping through the first round of selection because of this and our alliance went to the finals.
A mistake made is a lesson learned ![]() |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
Quote:
p.s. gotta love our team name |
|
#55
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Highest Seed not Chosen for Finals
Quote:
Hey it didn't matter. It didn't matter because no one was going to beat the 111, 469, 65 alliance. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm just playing. That really blows though that you didn't get picked. I liked your guys robot. ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 42 | 26-04-2005 19:19 |
| News from Philly | archiver | 1999 | 3 | 23-06-2002 22:03 |
| Early news from Philly | archiver | 1999 | 2 | 23-06-2002 22:03 |
| Competition at UTC New England | Rick Gibbs | Regional Competitions | 6 | 02-04-2002 09:25 |
| Second seed vs. 9th seed | Mr. Van | General Forum | 11 | 04-03-2002 01:27 |