Picker Or Pickee

[archiver]

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST


In Reply to: When the Pickee declines... posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:



i think that if you decline the offer, you are saying you don't want to be in the big show.

i think that if i was in the top 8 and was asked by another top 8 to dance with them, i'd be honored and would accept. Not getting to go is a fairly big deal...

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST


In Reply to: When the Pickee declines... posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:



Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

Bill B

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST:



: Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

My interpretation is the same as Bill's, but I'm not convinced the wording isn't an oversight.

I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I'll post any response I receive here.

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST:



: : Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

: My interpretation is the same as Bill's, but I'm not convinced the wording isn't an oversight.

: I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I'll post any response I receive here.

According to Eric, this issue is under discussion at FIRST. Keep your eyes on the Team Updates for more information.

Given that the issue is being debated at FIRST, perhaps a discussion here is in order should they decide to consider our opinions in making a decision.


With rule GM26 as written, I do not think it should be applied to teams who reject an offer to form an alliance if doing so allows them to form their own alliance - on the basis of either initial seeding or being bumped up by higher seeded teams forming an alliance.

Being the primary team of an alliance - being the picker instead of the pickee - may be considered by some teams to be a significant measure of their accomplishment in the competition. Certainly, not all teams will agree. But I don't think it is fair to deprive those who feel this way of the opportunity they earned simply to appease another team.

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines... posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST:



I vote for no rejections. period.

There are many many fewer back room deals situations that can arise.

I liked the straight forwardness of the picking in this method.

Either the seeding means something or it does not. If it does, then those who seed higher should get the advantage of the seed. We all know that the seeding does not really always come out in exact order, but we all live with it. If we want to say that the seeding order really doesn't matter, then we should toss all the team that seeded above the XXX percentile in a hat and then pick them in random order. As each of the first 8 teams get their number pulled from the hat, they would pick their partner (from among ALL teams not already picked -- even folks in the hat). After 8 teams have picked, these 8 would get a second pick in random order pulled from the hat.

At least this method would acknowledge the luck factor in determining the seeding rankings.

Any thoughts?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O'Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/10/2000 8:31 PM MST


In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:



i say no rejections too..

if you reject.. (as mentioned in someone's post earlier i think!) you're saying basically you don't want to play in the finals.. i really think that's the message FIRST is trying to get across... rejections are something they don't want to see at all..

plus..#1 should have #1 choice.. meaning they literally have their pick of the field..

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST


In Reply to: No Rejects posted by colleen on 1/10/2000 8:31 PM MST:



I know my opinion on this issue is very controversial because it WAS last time. But here it is:

I don't see why, if the #1 seed is really the best robot out there, that their first choice wouldn't want to work with them. Everyone seemingly wants so very much to win, so why would somebody throw that away for anything other than a good reason? Rejections were originally the factor that countered the 'luck' issue in determining seed. For example, if a team was really third best but they won #1 seed from some fluke, teams who know themselves to be the best pick will hold out to be picked by the 'best' team. This gets us what we want! A first place alliance of the best two robots! I was never truly convinced that teams don't deserve the right to reject an alliance request.

HOWEVER...

This year it's much less likely that teams will be seeded out of order. Last year, one lucky 540 or anything close would raise a team by thousands of qualifying points. This was just silly! One match could mean the difference between 9th seed and 1st seed. That should never be the case. This year, the likelihood of one match making the difference for a team is very low. Scores don't go up exponentially like they used to. No multipliers.

SO...

I don't forsee much need to reject. FIRST may as well make it impossible.

Any thoughts?
-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:29 PM MST


In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:



I see where you're going with this Daniel, and I must say that I agree with you. The way FIRST has made the game this year, seems to eliminate the problem of the huge scoring rounds that would push teams way up in the seeding. I think that the seeding matches are going to be very close this year, with standings constantly changing. I'm not sure if a team should be given the right to reject an alliance request, but their really shouldn't be a need anyway. So there, I think I've babbled long enough! ;-)

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST


In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:



I'm another person who disagreed with the no-rejection rule last year - and I still do.

Unlike Daniel, my objections have nothing to do with the accuracy of the seedings.

Drawing an analogy to the real world, I don't think a team's ranking should give it absolute control over another team any more than a company's size gives it absolute control over another company. In both cases, the better team/bigger company may be the most attractive partner for many, but there are some who would rather team up with another team/company for reasons of their own. I feel they should be allowed to do so.

One objection raised last year was that if rejections are allowed a team might throw matches in order to drop their seeding so they could be picked as a partner by a higher ranked team. That is not a factor this year because a seeded team can be selected as a partner by a higher ranked team. While there are still some situations where a team might benefit by throwing a match to hurt their alliance partner, these situations are not eliminated by a 'no reject' rule. And I honestly don't believe there are many, if any teams, who would do this.

For those who can't get past the conspiracy theories, try this one out:

Team 12 and team 4 desire to be alliance partners in the elimination rounds (the team numbers used here are the seeding ranks). Team 12 notifies teams 1-3 that it does not wish to be in an alliance with them prior to the selection process.

Team 2 ignores team 12's objection and chooses them as a partner. Team 12, irate over their slection by team 2, decides to accept the invitation. They also decide to teach team 2 a lesson by throwing their matches...

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST:



Nobody will throw matches in the elimination rounds. That would just be silly. I think people are way too competitive to do that. They want too much to win to throw away their own chances.

I think it would help your argument if you give a few practical reasons as to why someone would turn down a higher seeded alliance. I mostly agree with you on that but it really would help if you state some cases. As it is now, the only case you put fourth was highly improbable. Just a suggestion.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 11:09 PM MST:



: Nobody will throw matches in the elimination rounds. That would just be silly. I think people are way too competitive to do that. They want too much to win to throw away their own chances.

That's a rational response. People who are upset do not always behave rationally.

I agree that most teams would not throw an elimination match -- just as I feel that most teams wouldn't throw a qualifying match. The point I was trying to make is that implementing a 'no rejection' rule does not eliminate all the possible pathologic scenerios - it only changes the circumstances under which they might occur.

: I think it would help your argument if you give a few practical reasons as to why someone would turn down a higher seeded alliance. I mostly agree with you on that but it really would help if you state some cases. As it is now, the only case you put fourth was highly improbable. Just a suggestion.

There can be any number of reason -- many of which may not make much sense to anyone else. Why doesn't really matter -- the point is that with a 'no rejection' rule the team being picked loses their freedom of choice. That's not the way our society works in general, and I see no good reason to create a new paradigm here.

If having specific reasons will help you, here are a few:

- they have a long association with or feel more comfortable working with the lower-
ranked team
- they feel they will be able to make a greater contribution to an alliance with the lower-
ranked team
- they feel the seedings are inaccurate and that they stand a better chance of winning
with the lower-ranked team
- they dislike the higher-ranked team

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 3:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn't make sense this year! posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 11:54 PM MST:



I don't mean to sound all high and mighty here, but the competition doesn't work like that. If you get picked by someone, you work with them whether you like them or not. One theory the competition has always been based on (even before the days of gracious proffesionalism) is 'punting.' If you get picked by someone else, you might be a little unhappy about it, but you aren't going to throw matches in the finals. That would be shooting yourself in the foot. And this isn't the kind of situation where you lose the ability to think rationally. You're talking about rational people (or so engineers and prosective engineers are generally thought to be) in a fairly reasonable situation. Noone is going to be emotionally traumatized by being picked by a different team, so I don't see too many 'crimes of passion' being committed this year.

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST


In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:



I have a real problem with a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeiture it's right to select a partner! I am also against rejections and all the possible problems associated with it. Thats why I stated that I don't believe that FIRST thought this one all the way through. It appears that they tried to fix a part of the selection process that wasn't really broke.

The Outside Observer

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 12:21 AM MST


In Reply to: Ranking The Worms posted by Bill Beatty on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST:



Why are you against a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeit it's right to select a partner?

I personally am against a system that puts the 17th and 33rd best robots in 1st place with the #1 seed.

I think the mistake you may be making, is you're thinking of last year when you look at these rules. These teams aren't really forced to forfeit their right to pick, they simply never were given the right. The only team that's guaranteed the right to pick an alliance is the #1 seed. Nobody's forfeiting anything.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Erin.

Student on team #1, The Juggernauts, from OTC-NE, Oxford High School and 3-D Services.

Posted on 1/16/2000 10:41 AM MST


In Reply to: but wait... posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 12:21 AM MST:



last year, our robot couldn't rack up big points.
but when we got with a good offensive robot, we did the job and we did it well. Just because a robot is in 33rd place doesn't mean it is or isn't a good robot. I feel like you are degrading alot of the students that put good time and effort into their robot when you say that you don't think a 33rd or 17th place robot doesn't have a right to get 1st place with the number one seed. The Technokats had an extremely innovative and powerful robot. But due to the fact that they didn't always get lots of points, they weren't always in the top 8 or 16. But when another team picked them, they got out there and tore up the game. Sometimes a 33rd place robot does belong in 1st place with the 1st or 2nd or whatever seed, it just needs a little help by being picked.
I don't think we will see all of the top teams picking each other this year. Last year was too big of an example for this to happen.
maybe i am wrong? just trying to prove a point. i like feedback
-erin