|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: How should alliance selection be altered? | |||
| Reverse the order so that 8th seed picks first and 1st seed picks last |
|
6 | 4.38% |
| Make it so that any team in the top 8 cannot pick another team in the top 8 |
|
30 | 21.90% |
| Leave as it is |
|
101 | 73.72% |
| Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
The current was is fine. The professional sports drafts were designed that way for a reason, as were the Fantasy Sports drafts, and of course, the FIRST draft. Each of them serves a different purpose in attempting to create a fair environment. Professional sports drafts are designed so that the teams that are in last place get top prospects, in hopes that teams will not remain in the bottom of the league for forever. These teams are already at a disadvantage, because if they're in last place, they most likely have had talent/injury problems, so they are given the advantage of improving their team for next year, or at least for the near future. This doesn't work for FIRST because the draft is for this season, not next season, as well as the fact that FIRST's "regular season" does not produce nearly enough definitive results about a robot or a team as the professional sports system does.
The fantasy sports draft was designed to keep everything fair to everyone. As far as the system knows, everyone is equal in talent, so it picks randomly, and essentially everyone, in theory, is able to pick an equal amount of talent from their draft position. This doesn't work because it would render qualifying rounds moot. The draft system we have right now is fine. FIRST is not professional sports. It was designed that way. We are trying to move away from the system of individual players being drafted and idolized. We are drafting teams here, not individual people. -Alex Pelan |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance picking
This is a great topic.
Using a sports analogy, by the end of a 162-game baseball season, you have a pretty good idea of which teams are the best that year (the 3-division format with a wild card is Just Wrong, but we'll let that slide for now). Since the FRC competition starts with 8 or 10 matches with random alliances, I believe you really can't tell which are the best robots. I think, therefore, that the seeding is more than just a little arbitrary. The final alliance system needs to address this discrepancy. The current method uses human evaluation through the scouting process to recognize outstanding robots that might have slipped in the seedings through no fault of their own. This method is still imperfect as we all know that teams with reputations, low numbers, uniforms, handouts, giant chicken suits and other "marketing" tools are sometimes chosen over quiet teams with great robots. Scouting is, in a lot of ways, not much different from the seeding system. So, here is a modest proposal for some changes to the current system: 1. Qualification matches only last one day. For a 40-team regional, this would probably limit each team to 5-6 qualification matches. 2. At the end of Qualification Day on Friday, the teams would be seeded and the results posted. That evening, the teams can strategize for Eliminations. 3. First thing Saturday morning (like 8am), the alliances are chosen. Matches start at 9. The number of alliances would be the number of teams present rounded down to the nearest integer. For example, a regional with 40 teams would have 13 alliances. 4. Any "odd-man-out" teams would stand by to replace robots that aren't working during the Eliminations. I'm open to ideas here, by the way. Maybe it would be better to add them to the lowest- or highest-seeded alliances and have one or two 4-robot teams? 5. Alliances would be chosen via draft as in the current system. 6. The First Round of the Eliminations would be for reducing the number of alliances to eight. For example, in a 39-team regional, there would be 13 alliances. To reduce the 13 alliances (for example) to eight alliances for the Final Round of the Eliminations, there would be a 2-out-of-3 match between the lower-ranked alliances. 7. OK, this is easier with a drawing than in words, but here's how the First Elimination round would work for regionals with up to 48 teams (I haven't thought about what to do with more than 16 alliances yet...): a. If you have 16 alliances, #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc. The eight winners go on to the Final Round. b. If you have fewer than 16 alliances, use this formula to determine the number of matches: (# of alliances) - 8 = # of single-elimination matches For example, a 13-alliance field would have have five First Round elimination matches, which would be played between the 4th through 13th seeded alliances. The top three alliances would get a bye. The 4th seed would play the 13th, the 5th would play the 12th, etc. The winners of these matches would go through to play the Final Round with the top-seeded alliances that got a bye. Things I like about this system: 1. Everyone gets to participate in the alliance selection. No one is left out. 2. Everyone has a shot at the finals. Admittedly, the 13th-ranked alliance won't have much chance, but miracles happen (Winter Olympics, 1980). 3. The Qualifications round is more about scouting and seeding than about eliminating teams (by not being picked). Things I don't like about this system: 1. It's a little harder to explain than the current system. 2. I haven't done the work yet to see if this leaves enough matches on Saturday. So, what do you think? |
|
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Currently, the way it’s done now is fair and simple. If you seed in first place, you deserve first pick. And while the first seed certainly has the advantage, they won’t always win. In almost every case it seems that it's not the best team that makes up the alliance, but the best combination of teams. Disallowing the picking of teams with in the top eight would make an interesting rule change which would end any 1-2 seed alliances, but at the same time would make picking a lot harder because in most cases first seeds pick list's top eight are the rankings top eight.
|
|
#19
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
2. At some Regionals, will be too many matches to play on Sat. At the Greater Toronto Regional this year, there were 66 teams. That would make 22 alliances. That would require: 6 play-in match-ups + 8 first round match-ups + 4 quarterfinal match-ups + 2 semi match-ups + 1 final match-up = 21 match-ups. Each match-up could last up to 3 matches for a maximum of 21*3=63 matches. That’s more than the number of qualifying matches some Regionals have. I guess the play-in games could be one match, but that would only eliminate 12 matches. The idea is pretty cool. It has a feel of March Madness where you don’t really know who is going to win. It would be nice to include as many teams as possible in the tournament. Unfortunately, it’s just not practical. |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
Wetzel |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance picking
I like the way it is now. The one way it could be improved is if you added eight more possible alliances and picked friday night. There was talk that 1st always wins. At West Michigan number 5 or 4 won beating one and two with good strategy, good design and good driving.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
I think that the current system is good, although the serpentine system merits consideration. My team is a rookie team, and we did fairly good; #17 seed. To our complete suprise, we were the first choice of the #2 seed. While we didn't win, we won every qualifying match until finals, where we lost both to the #1 alliance (which teams it consisted of escape me for the moment). I guess that this goes to show that the current system works out pretty well. By the way, I think that there was a rookie team in the top 8 at Peachtree, but correct me if i'm wrong
|
|
#23
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
The so-called "serpentine" system was one that Andy Baker and I discussed while standing around the sidelines at the Las Vegas Regional. It is interesting, but there are some definite pros and cons to the idea. But it was much better than one of the other ideas we discussed, that would never be implemented (let's just say that Andy promised if it ever was implemented, he wsa gonna get Midieval on my poor little, non-pig-wrestling, computer-geek behind; he said something about making his "sumo wrestling match with Jason Morrella look like a walk in the park" - and we all know how that ended...
).-dave |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I really like the idea of the serpentine draft. I think that would definitely "balance" the competition a bit.
But the way it is, you almost always end up with the two best alliances in the finals, which makes for a very exciting set of matches. Who's to say that FIRST couldn't give it a try for one year? It's not like that hasn't been done before (2001). Speaking of which, that auto-seed system was a very unique idea. For those that are unfamiliar with it, the #1 seed was automatically paired with the #5 seed, #2 with #6, etc. It worked well because you had to draft 3 additional teams and there were no quarter finals. There may have been teams that would throw a match so that they could drop down into an auto-seed position, but I'm not sure how frequently it happened (if at all). The only complaint (not really) with the current system I have is that I think the #1 vs. #8 match should not be the first match (I think it should be the last quarterfinal match). I say this because the #8 teams tend to be inexperienced (in terms of the finals) and may not have even been prepared to be a picker (no excuse if you're in the top 15). In the frantic hour between picking and playing, repairs and reinspection must happen, and things get overlooked. Maybe I'm just bitter because we swapped in a good battery and then swapped the battery we just took out back IN just before the match (d'oh!). . Rest assured, that WILL NOT happen again!Kev |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
|
|
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
|
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
The 8th seeded alliance at VCU beat the 1st seeded alliance in the quarterfinals.
Then they beat the 5th seeded alliance in the semi-finals. They lost 2-0 in the finals to the 3rd seeded alliance - but they still made it to the finals with supposedly the lowest ranked teams and got plenty of recognition (good and bad). They used a very defensive strategy - sacrificing one robot that could not cap reliably (about 50%) to play very hard defense. |
|
#28
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
While I voted to keep the present system in the poll, it might be interesting to not allow teams to pick each other withing the top 8. That should equalize alliances somewhat and increase the chance for good teams that did not make the top 8 due to bad luck, etc., to end up in one of the top alliances. As it is now, teams who did not make the top 8 might be hoping to be picked in the second round by one of the top alliances, rather than in the first round by number 7 or 8. Not allowing teams to pick within the top 8 would "mix things up" in the first round picks like is now the case in the second round picks. I did not like the "auto matching" used in 2001 where 1-5, 2-6 etc. were automatically paired into alliances. Last edited by Kit Gerhart : 11-04-2005 at 08:08. |
|
#29
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Quote:
For example: If you are #4 and hope to be picked by #1, under the current system you do not have to worry about where you stand - just continue to win. But, if you do not allow #1 to pick other seeded teams, #4 would consider negotiating with #1 and then losing on purpose to make themselves eligible to be picked by #1. |
|
#30
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Alliance picking
Adding one more vote for keep it as-is, I'll add that in my experience, FRC qualification seeding rewards consistency and luck as much as game-dominating performance. Also, we've all seen many cases where very strong robots have seeded outside the top 8 because of weak alliance partners in qualification. Team 237 at NJ this year was a good example already raised in this thread.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2005 Palmetto Regional | Billfred | Regional Competitions | 115 | 15-04-2005 00:19 |
| Las Vegas Update | SteveO | Regional Competitions | 31 | 09-04-2005 16:08 |
| 2005 West Michigan | pathew100 | Regional Competitions | 59 | 09-04-2005 12:56 |
| Alliance Picking Rules Change?! | Mr. Lim | Regional Competitions | 40 | 09-03-2005 12:17 |
| about picking up your alliance partner | archiver | 2000 | 1 | 23-06-2002 22:34 |