#1 seeded teams

[Tytus Gerrish]

in florida atleast, the #2 seed turned down the #1 seed and they both ended up getting eliminated. if they had teamed up it would have been over right there.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Here's my 2 cents...

The #1 seed is still dominant because their first pick could be the #2 seeded robot. When 2/3 of an alliance are composed of the best robots at the regional it's guaranteed success.

I think FIRST should re-instate the rule that requires the top 8 seeded teams to pick teams outside of the top 8. Adding that rule back in and keeping the new serpentine rule should make for some exciting finals.

So are you saying that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are the best at the regional/championships? If so ( I hate to say it again) then maybe you should think back to Nationals in 2003 when Miss Daisy picked Buzz who was seeded 17th, and the techno-ticks who were seeded 60th. they went on to win thier division. Also if you look at the number 1 seed from their division they picked truck town who was seeded 25th and then team 9 who was seeded 35th. The reason that in a lot of regionals the number 1 seeded team picks teams in the top 8 is because they have worked with them and they work well. But thier normally aren't 70 teams that they can choose from to work with.

Last year 175 and 33 picked team 108 who was seeded 79th. and they won thier division.

Also 56 and 254 picked 64 who was seeded 63rd and won thier division.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

The #1 seed is still dominant because their first pick could be the #2 seeded robot. When 2/3 of an alliance are composed of the best robots at the regional it's guaranteed success.

Yes, but it takes three robots to win this game. The best two robots at a regional will never beat three good robots in this game.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

So are you saying that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are the best at the regional/championships?

Statisticly speaking, yes.

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

...then maybe you should think back to Nationals in...

Statisticly speaking, that is an anomaly.

Originally Posted by Ogre

Yes, but it takes three robots to win this game. The best two robots at a regional will never beat three good robots in this game.

Perhaps not a 2 on 3, but statisticaly speaking there is a much better chance an alliance composed of the two highest seeded robots will win the regional.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Ogre

Yes, but it takes three robots to win this game. The best two robots at a regional will never beat three good robots in this game.

Yes but two great robots and one good robot (a little hard to come by at smaller regionals, but almost a definite in Atlanta) will beat an alliance of three good robots.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Statisticly speaking, yes.

Statisticly speaking, that is an anomaly.

Perhaps not a 2 on 3, but statisticaly speaking there is a much better chance an alliance composed of the best two robots will win the regional.

the BEST TWO ROBOTS, not the 2 highest seeded.

NJ
25 (#1) picked 103 (#10)

FLR
1126 (#1) picked 229 (#6)

GLR
Being clarified right now

Pittsburg
395(#1) picked 1038(#6)

Chesapeake
1629(#1) picked 175(#4)

Detroit
469 (#1) picked 217 (#14)

Mid-West
1756(#1) picked 111(#3)

Peachtree
1261 (#1) picked 1414 (#2)

SVR
254(#1) picked 581 (#9)

so of all the teams that seeded number 1 and went on to win only 1 had the alliance of the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams together. statistically it looks bad for the number 1 and 2 seeded alliances to team up.

Also what statistics are you using to show that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are really the best at any given regional?

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

t
so of all the teams that seeded number 1 and went on to win only 1 had the alliance of the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams together. statistically it looks bad for the number 1 and 2 seeded alliances to team up.

Also what statistics are you using to show that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are really the best at any given regional?

First, I apologize for being flippant up there in this thread.

Second, your data show a trend, but it is a pretty small sample size. You might not really be able to draw good conclusions until all the regionals are over. You would then have a sample that might be big enough to be statistically significant. It's an interesting exercise. Thanks for taking time to do the research.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

the BEST TWO ROBOTS, not the 2 highest seeded...

Also what statistics are you using to show that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are really the best at any given regional?

Sorry, I meant two highest seeded robots (I have edited my previous post).

The #1 and #2 seeded robots are the best robots. Otherwise, you are saying that the seeding rounds are used to place robots in random order.

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I think FIRST should re-instate the rule that requires the top 8 seeded teams to pick teams outside of the top 8. Adding that rule back in and keeping the new serpentine rule should make for some exciting finals.

I agree, this would greatly increase fairness. Lets say there is a imaginary team 666 (I'm not satanic, I just happen to know this number is not in use) at the imaginary Pork Ridge regional. 666 is considered one of the best, if not the best team at Pork Ridge. However, they get a little bad luck in their last match and ends up seeded number 7. In alliance choosing, under last year's method the #1 seeded (very good) team 1337 could pick 666 then another strong team, 13. This alliance would be nearly unbeatable. With this year's system, 1337 could pick 666 then have to wait a while till they get to choose again. This time 13 was snatched up by another alliance, so they have to go with 990, another good team, but not as good as 13. Now they will be the favorites to win, but not unstoppable. Then, with a serpentine system and the old rule, 1337 can't pick 666, so they pick 13. 666 picks a really good team, 803, then when they get the choice again, they pick 193. 1337 then picks 990. Now the alliances are more even, and there aren't any super alliances and the winner is uncertain, assuming all the captains did their homework and chose good teams.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Also what statistics are you using to show that the number 1 and number 2 seeded teams are really the best at any given regional?

The Law of Large Numbers tells us that the ranking at the end of a sufficient quantity of randomly assigned qualification matches will reflect the robot goodness with high confidence. It's too bad that an actual competition doesn't have anything near the number of matches necessary to make that happen. All we get is a very rough approximation.

Besides, an effective alliance is not just the sum of its component teams. Two or three complementary robots can do better together than two or three nominally "better" robots that don't work with each other as well.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Sorry, I meant two highest seeded robots (I have edited my previous post).

The #1 and #2 seeded robots are the best robots. Otherwise, you are saying that the seeding rounds are used to place robots in random order.

All I am trying to say is that as Alan as said we don't play enough matches to prove who really should be seeded number 1 or number 2, that they are just rough approxamations. Looking at FLR, some of the top seeded teams never played against each other. Also remember that the #1 seeded team may need something different than what the #2 seeded team has to offer. But yes if you want to take it as me saying the robots are placed in random order then go ahead and do so, because when thinking about ranking you don't take into account matches when you have 2 robots against 3 because someone didn't make the match (Since that is not a good judge of your robot with respect to the alliance). You don't play all the robots at a regional, and I would venture to say that you barely play half at the Championship. So the best robots could be teams that aren't seeded number 1 and number 2. But by all means if you are number 1 pick the #2 seed. Because i know that if i was the number 3 seed, i would pick a perfect partner for me, no matter thier seed.

I do plan on keeping a tab on all of the #1 alliances that win regionals, so that i have a slightly larger, but by no means perfect, sample.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

GLR
Being clarified right now

#1 (1503) picked #3 (1114)

[Nuttyman54]

just to prove that the seeds do not necessarily demonstrate the best robots: We were seeded 15th (out of 40) at the end of fridays matches.

Number of matches we were scheduled for: 7
Number of matches we fielded a robot: 4
Number of matches our robot moved: 2
Number of matches our robot was able to score: 0
Number of matches our robot worked: 0
Reason we ended up 15th: Our alliance partners

The robot was fixed, we played both of our matches on saturday as a fully functional alliance and lost both. We ended up 26th seed and were not picked.
Yes, the top seeded robots will be some of the best robots, but just as we had a lucky break on Friday, other teams got the worse end when we DIDN'T field a robot, and lost because of that. They may have had the best robot at the regional, but couldn't win a 2 on 3 match against 3 good robots

[Sgraff_SRHS06]

Originally Posted by dlavery

As expected, there has been quite a bit of discussion about the "serpentine draft" process for selecting alliances. Now we are starting to have some actual data to support those discussions.

Historically, the traditional selection process has had the highest seeded team pick first within each round of selections. That made for a significant number of very, very strong alliances during the finals (some would argue, unbeatable). If the alliances were all of equivalent capability and skill, then you could logically conclude that each of the eight alliances in the finals would have an equal probability of winning the competition. There should be an even distribution of wins vs. seed position at the conclusion of the competition season. A #1 seeded alliance should win 12.5% of the time, as would a #2 alliance, a #3 alliance, etc. But the data showed that was not the case. The #1 alliance typically won more than half the time. Yes, there were occasionally upsets and "underdog stories." But the reality is that if you were the #1 seed team, you knew you had a 1-in-2 probability of winning the event, while the lower seeded alliances (which nominally should expect a 1-in-8 chance), had considerably lower probability of winning. Being the #1 seed should allow an alliance to come into the finals with some advantage. But the concern was that the old alliance selection process gave them TOO MUCH of an advantage and it was killing the competition.

The new selection process was, in part, an attempt to slightly even out the competitive level for the finals. No one believes that we will ever reach the point that each of the final alliances will actually have a real 1-in-8 probability of winning the competitions, and that was not the intent. But the desire was to move a little bit away from the point where the #1 alliance position was almost an assured win every time.

Based on these initial numbers, it appears that that effort may have been only partially successful. Out of 18 events, a truly even distribution would have the #1 alliance winning 2.25 times, or 12.5% of the time. But these data shows that they have won 8 times, giving a 44% probability of winning the competition. Given that the #1 alliance is still out-performing pure probability by a factor of more than three, I think that we can safely conclude that being in the #1 alliance position is still a very good place to be. The teams are obviously able to still build strong alliances, and play the game successfully. While the sample size is still a little small for an accurate small number statistics analysis, it does appear that the #1 alliance position still wins the competition a disproportionately high number of times. Picking first during the draft still provides a strategically important advantage to the #1 alliance position that is only slightly affected by, and absolutely not overshadowed by, the serpentine draft process.

-dave

But that does not stop the higher seeds from doing their most vicious weapon--consolidate with other members of the Top-8 to get an advantage. At Chesapeakes, consolidation madness was everywhere. When 1629 got together with 175 (the #4-ranked team) and 181 (Birds of Prey) combined with 888 (the #5-ranked team) in the alliances, they were unbeatable (even though we (the #7 ranked team) combined with 614 to form the #4 alliance). If consolidation between the top-8 were not allowed to happen (like there would be a rule stating that the top-8 could not select each other), then the serpentine-selection rule would make the matches much more even.

[MattB703]

Originally Posted by Sgraff_SRHS06

But that does not stop the higher seeds from doing their most vicious weapon--consolidate with other members of the Top-8 to get an advantage. At Chesapeakes, consolidation madness was everywhere. When 1629 got together with 175 (the #4-ranked team) and 181 (Birds of Prey) combined with 888 (the #5-ranked team) in the alliances, they were unbeatable (even though we (the #7 ranked team) combined with 614 to form the #4 alliance). If consolidation between the top-8 were not allowed to happen (like there would be a rule stating that the top-8 could not select each other), then the serpentine-selection rule would make the matches much more even.

This is certainly true in the regional competitions and the smaller the regional the more true it will be. However, I believe that at big regionals like GTR and in the Divisions at the Championship Event the new system will work very well and you will see much less domination by the #1 seed teams even with the ability of #1 seed to pick with-in the top 8.

In summary; I like the current system.

Matt B.