Serpentine Draft Alliance Parings, Like/Dislike

[Steve Ketron]

I think the serpentine drafting is fair. With the qualification pairings of the last couple of years, being the number one seed doesn't actually mean you are the best robot. I think depends a lot on whole you are matched with. Perfect example is the Detroit Regional this year. My team got to compete against the top four seeds but had one of them as a partner once. We were the number nine seed after qualifications and think that if some of those teams were on our team we might have been able to go with one loss instead of 4. That would have made us a 1-3 seeded teaM (BIG DIFFERENCE)

[Danny McC]

This selection process isn't so good for this game this year. I would love to see it go 8-1, 1-8. That I think would make the elims so much more interesting.

[IKE]

The draft seems to work pretty well at regionals with a lot of depth. This year we went to MWR, WMR, and GLR. These were all crazy tough regionals with a lot of depth. 910 was the 24th pick at GLR and that was a great machine. I understand people's reasonings for wanting even more level of a playing field. That being said I often compare FIRST to other Motorsports. There are only a few strange specialty races that put the fastest qualifier at the back of the pack. I would not be a fan of the 8-1 then 1-8 as that would lead to strategic dumping in final matches.

[A_Reed]

I Like the serpentine draft system, it does make the whole field slightly more even and forces the higher seeds to pick with a little more strategy in mind. As much as I don't like seeing one sided finals, where the red score is 2x the blue score, I would imagine it would be allot worse if the #1 seeds got their second round pick first making an even tougher alliance, as a matter of fact this kind of thing did happen prior to '06 that was why the rule was made.

As for 8-1 and 1-8, I don't see that working. sure it would have it's advantages but it would completely falsify the ranking system, people would drop matches on purpose and the teams who actually tried wouldn't get what they earned, the first overall pick.

IMO(and it's something that will never happen is), if you really wanted to even the playing field and stop the formation of power alliances FIRST should drop the picking within the top 8. It would create some really even, some might say boring, elimination rounds that are now completely based on the skills of each teams scouting system not the power of a ranked team one spot lower than them, but I really don't see it happening is it would take away the right of the higher seeds to use the power they have earned and would would also falsify the ranking cause teams would again drop matches to not be in the top 8.

[mathking]

Steve Ketron hit the nail on the head. #1 seed does not mean you had the best robot or that you necessarily played better than others. Being a #1 seed depends not just on having a good robot but to at least some extent on good luck with the pairings. A serpentine draft levels the playing field against the luck of the qualification matches. And it makes for more exciting matches.

[Martijn]

The serpentine system definitely helps to even out the different alliances, thereby creating more interesting finals. However, the unfortunate thing is that not always the best teams end up making it to the georgia dome. For example, we were the 3rd seeded team, and then we picked team 1771, and 1999. Unfortunately our alliance only reached the semi-finals. But i feel like 1771 deserved to go to nationals with their robot this year. On the other hand its also no fun to have one alliance which just dominates the elimination rounds. Perhaps there could be a 6th team at every regional which could go to nationals every year. Like a robot picked by the judges, which they felt deserved to go to nationals in addition to the winning alliance, to the rookie all-star team, and the chairman's award winners.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Martijn

The serpentine system definitely helps to even out the different alliances, thereby creating more interesting finals. However, the unfortunate thing is that not always the best teams end up making it to the georgia dome. For example, we were the 3rd seeded team, and then we picked team 1771, and 1999. Unfortunately our alliance only reached the semi-finals. But i feel like 1771 deserved to go to nationals with their robot this year. On the other hand its also no fun to have one alliance which just dominates the elimination rounds. Perhaps there could be a 6th team at every regional which could go to nationals every year. Like a robot picked by the judges, which they felt deserved to go to nationals in addition to the winning alliance, to the rookie all-star team, and the chairman's award winners.

I think you mean a 7th team. The EI award winner qualifies also.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Martijn

Perhaps there could be a 6th team at every regional which could go to nationals every year. Like a robot picked by the judges, which they felt deserved to go to nationals in addition to the winning alliance, to the rookie all-star team, and the chairman's award winners.

It's happened before...and probably won't happen again. There were "special circumstances" involved.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Martijn

The serpentine system definitely helps to even out the different alliances, thereby creating more interesting finals. However, the unfortunate thing is that not always the best teams end up making it to the georgia dome. For example, we were the 3rd seeded team, and then we picked team 1771, and 1999. Unfortunately our alliance only reached the semi-finals. But i feel like 1771 deserved to go to nationals with their robot this year. On the other hand its also no fun to have one alliance which just dominates the elimination rounds. Perhaps there could be a 6th team at every regional which could go to nationals every year. Like a robot picked by the judges, which they felt deserved to go to nationals in addition to the winning alliance, to the rookie all-star team, and the chairman's award winners.

There already is a judges' award, and I think it would be a great idea to possibly let the team awarded it to go to Nationals. I'm sure there are many teams that aren't Chairman's material, aren't rookies, and don't fall into the EI Award category that deserve to go anyway. This would be optional, though: the judges would only give the award if they felt there was a team that truly deserved it. (Isn't the award already optional?)

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by bduddy

There already is a judges' award, and I think it would be a great idea to possibly let the team awarded it to go to Nationals. I'm sure there are many teams that aren't Chairman's material, aren't rookies, and don't fall into the EI Award category that deserve to go anyway. This would be optional, though: the judges would only give the award if they felt there was a team that truly deserved it. (Isn't the award already optional?)

I think there's an optional 2nd Judges Award, if I'm not mistaken.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah Johnson

I think there's an optional 2nd Judges Award, if I'm not mistaken.

And a third. Judges may give one, two, three, or even no Judges' Awards. (Or more, if they so desire and there is enough trophies to go around.)

[cbale2000]

I like the Serpentine Draft a lot more than the regular way. It adds a lot of balance to the alliance selection process, preventing the top few alliances from becoming too powerful.

If you give the top teams the ability to pick 2 of the best possible teams, like the other way, you tend to end up with an alliance which can dominate all the other ones, and in some cases not even create that much of a challenge doing so.


One thing I think would be an interesting addition to the system would be to prevent the top 8 teams from picking each other. This might add a new element of strategy to the selection process and could significantly level the playing field for all of the 8 alliances. Both of the regionals I went to this year had a number one team go and pick another high seeded team (top 5), and then go on to win every single match they played in the finals.


While Serpentine (and definitely the addition I mentioned) don't give as much of a bonus to teams that have earned their way to #1, consider that in most cases such teams are in those positions because they are good. Does a team that already has an advantage really need more of one?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I like the Serpentine Draft a lot more than the regular way. It adds a lot of balance to the alliance selection process, preventing the top few alliances from becoming too powerful.

If you give the top teams the ability to pick 2 of the best possible teams, like the other way, you tend to end up with an alliance which can dominate all the other ones, and in some cases not even create that much of a challenge doing so.


One thing I think would be an interesting addition to the system would be to prevent the top 8 teams from picking each other. This might add a new element of strategy to the selection process and could significantly level the playing field for all of the 8 alliances. Both of the regionals I went to this year had a number one team go and pick another high seeded team (top 5), and then go on to win every single match they played in the finals.


While Serpentine (and definitely the addition I mentioned) don't give as much of a bonus to teams that have earned their way to #1, consider that in most cases such teams are in those positions because they are good. Does a team that already has an advantage really need more of one?

The only thing I would be skeptical about in your suggestion, NOT to have the top 8 pick from each other is teams "throwing the towel" in some matches to lower themselves to pick each other.
Evening the playing field should have consideration, but ultimately, if another team is consistently good each year, I would talk story with them and ask how they do certain things, asking for advise.
I have rarely heard of any team that wasn't willing to share.
We have always admired teams such as 254, 233, 25 and especially team 368 year after year. Over the past several years, we have become pretty good friends as they have shared what they have built.
In fact, our robot base is very similar to what 254 built in '05 as we studied their website photos and took pictures of their bot last year, being next to them in the pit. They had no problems with that.
We may not have capabilities as the top teams out there, but we can certainly strive to do so, experiencing a few successes along the way.

[Jim Meyer]

To me this question boils down to one very simple question: Do you want to see the best teams win?

Sure everyone can provide examples where things worked out different ways. If we assume that the seeding process actually works and puts the best teams at the top seeds, the serpentine draft works against those "best" teams actualy taking medals home.

IMHO, if FIRST wants us to achieve the recognition that sports like football, basketball, etc. have achieved they need to make it less of a science fair and more of a competition. The whole system seems to be designed so that any team can win. Wasn't it Woodie Flowers that talked about how false praise doesn't really do anything to boost your self confidence? Every year we have a "champion" who is... maybe the 65th best robot in the nation? (4 divisions, 8 top seeds and 8 first picks per division) It'd be almost impossible to have the best 3 teams in the country win the championship.

When "co-operatition" was introduced, it was sold as a model of the business world, where companies have to work together to succeeed. When introduced it worked quite well. You'd often have the top two teams at the event win. The serpentine draft system works against that mental model of trying to replicate the business world.

[FoleyEngineer]

Originally Posted by IKE

The draft seems to work pretty well at regionals with a lot of depth. This year we went to MWR, WMR, and GLR. These were all crazy tough regionals with a lot of depth. 910 was the 24th pick at GLR and that was a great machine.

I think good scouting is the key to picking the best alliance. We were working on our bot after every event - improving the hybrid code, adding stronger arms, improving our launcher accuracy and timing, etc. Our won/loss record didn't show that. Also, who you're partnered with / against makes a huge difference. At "picking time" we were 4-3-1 in 25th place. When the #1 alliance talked to us and asked us how things stood, we told them that we had our hybrid working well with programmable delays and curves based on any of the 3 starting positions, our launcher was all set and we were ready to go. In the playoffs we scored 3 to 4 hurdles per match (when asked to hurdle, vs. handoff to 217), and got 3 to 4 lines in hybrid, plus knocked down the balls. I don't know about the other regionals but a 3rd pick that gives you 52 points is probably a steal isn't it?

If you only go by standings or how they did in the match you watched (where something might have broken), then you can easily draw the wrong conclusion. You need to visit them and see for yourself. Also, some teams have a way of stepping it up when it counts. When you see big-name teams lower in the rankings you often have to ignore that and go visit them. They may lose a ton of matches and have problems but get them all fixed and begin to "peak" Saturday at noon. It's like a race car that doesn't run right all during the qualifying matches, but then they find and fix the problem just before the big race. Only by visiting their pits can you find that out. The stats alone just don't cut it.