Picking Teams

[Mr. Freeman]

Originally Posted by Cory

This was asked and answered last week.

I can't recall what the thread title was. Anyone else remember?

Wasn't that thread about intentionally losing matches to prevent the team from taking the #8 alliance slot?

[Uberbots]

This is a very valid and well used strategy known as alliance breaking. pick the team that you know the other powerhouse is going to pick, and get rid of the potential deadly alliance. Its a good way to even the playing ground.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Mr. Freeman

Wasn't that thread about intentionally losing matches to prevent the team from taking the #8 alliance slot?

Maybe, but I don't think so. It's related--the idea was to avoid getting picked by #1 as they went down the line keeping other strong teams from allying.

[Chris Herold]

Well, it definitely happened at the Seattle Regional with us. Our team, Team 1983 - The Skunkworks was 3rd Seed. Team 1778 was 1st and 1318 2nd. We were talking to team 1778 before the alliance picking and telling them we were glad that they considered us but we would-due to our strategy-decline their offer in case they would chose us in the official picking! So they picked another team, not us. 1318 then tried to pick us, what we didn't expect so we "respectfully declined!" Our strategy was to team up with team 2046, one of the teams we were working closely together with during build season. Well, we ended up with them and won the regional.
This story shows pretty much your scenario at regional level!

I really don't think that we did not practice GP. We informed team 1778 before the official picking that we would decline in case they tried to pick us. We also were always polite while team 1318 asked us to join them. That is what I think most important.
Even if you decline-and I think there is nothing wrong with it-you should be very polite all the time. It depends very much on the way you handle your decisions! The gracious professionalism means, for me, to cooperate, to communicate and to be friendly and polite all the time, even though you are competitive.

I don't like the whole idea of intentionally losing matches, though. Anyhow one can hardly prove that and on the other hand every team has the chance to get through by winning all their games...so until a team does not actually confess they did it, I would be very, very careful with this topic.

[Joe J.]

A similar situation happed at Great Lakes this year, there was some discussion in the Great Lakes Regional thread starts around page 10, and Paul Copioli explains the situation here

[Laaba 80]

I honestly dont understand why this is such a big debate. The 1 seed is just that the number 1 seed. They earned the right to have the first pick, and do whatever will most benefit their team. Why should the 3 seed team tell the 1 seed what to do, they didnt earn it? I see nothing wrong with this strategy. Also, odds are they arent just picking them to break up the other alliance, they must actually want to play with them. Maybe that is just the team they think will help them the most, it doesnt always need to involve breaking up an alliance.
Also on the GP standpoint. I dont see anything wrong with this. GP I personally think is begining to have a little too much glory with it. I'm not saying I dont like GP in FIRST, but now it is being braught up with everything that happens. When I think about GP I think you should help other teams, and that is the end, it doesnt need to be a huge thing. I just feel like it is starting to mean less and less because some people are so strict about it. This thread is a perfect example. Why should a team get questioned for a perfectly legal strategy that will help their team? I really dont get it.
GP is also all subjective to different opinions. If one team does something that may disappoint another team the team that did it will think they did nothing wrong, when the other team may think they are being unGP. In this case I feel like people are just using GP as an excuse to try and knock something they dont agree with, and that really does anger me. I dont think a team should be yelled at for being unGP unless they are doing something offensive, or taking away the experience of the tournament from others.

Sorry for my rant, I feel very strongly about this topic. If you dont agree with me let me know, and I will try to explain how I feel in a different way.
Joey

[Nawaid Ladak]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i will and always will criticize a number one ranked team for doing this... GIVEN THAT THE OTHER TEAM ALREADY SAID NO TO YOUR REQUEST BEFOREHAND. (if they didn't it's a different story.). I'm not going to say if it's gp or un-gp because it falls under that gray area. but in my opinion, your disrespecting that team if you do pick them when they already said no. on top of that, your making the other team look like their disrespecting you (which technicality is there right, if they think their better than you, then by all means, believe it.).... it's better to bring yourself up than to bring others down. when you do this, it always seems like your playing not to lose.... playing conservative....

in other words.... I THINK THIS IS A BAD IDEA FOR ANY TEAM

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i will and always will criticize a number one ranked team for doing this... GIVEN THAT THE OTHER TEAM ALREADY SAID NO TO YOUR REQUEST BEFOREHAND. (if they didn't it's a different story.).

The #1 seed has the right to invite any team that they wish to form an alliance to form an alliance.

Asking a team to form an alliance solely to prevent them from being selected by another team is not GP. Not because it is not gracious... but because it is not professional. You should only ask a team to join you if you think that will enhance your chances of winning the event.

You should only ever ask teams to form an alliance if you truly wish to form an alliance with them. After all, that team that initially said "No" might just change their minds and you'll be stuck with them.

So let's quit looking at the "gracious" and start looking at the "professional". Is it GP for the top seed to invite any team that they wish to join them, if they believe that will improve their odds of winning the regional, regardless of whether that team "wants" to? Absolutely... that is why top seed is valuable. But to ask a team that won't make your alliance a strong one, just so they won't ally with someone else? That's just silly.

If you are top seed, always pick your number one pick, regardless of what they have told you. If they decline... that is their choice... but you should always make your best choice first. Anything else cannot be GP as it is not professional.

Jason

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Should a team's loyalty extend beyond themselves to helping insure their Division wins the Championship?

I don't understand this concept of division loyalty. Your team is placed, more or less randomly (except for Juggernauts ), into a division. You had no loyalty connection to most of those teams 10 minutes before the division assignments were published. Now your job is to make sure that your division wins on Einstein, even if that means you sacrifice your own team's chance to appear on Einstein? Sorry, I don't get it.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I don't understand this concept of division loyalty. Your team is placed, more or less randomly (except for Juggernauts ), into a division. You had no loyalty connection to most of those teams 10 minutes before the division assignments were published. Now your job is to make sure that your division wins on Einstein, even if that means you sacrifice your own team's chance to appear on Einstein? Sorry, I don't get it.

Do you similarly not understand the concept of alliance loyalty? It's the same sort of thing, just on a larger scale and for a longer term. The only significant difference is that your own team's share in the victory is highly diluted.

That difference crosses the threshold between winning a trophy and not, so I can understand not wanting to "take one for the division", but the concept seems valid.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Should a team's loyalty extend beyond themselves to helping insure their Division wins the Championship?

The US Marines say they believe in God, country, and Corps. In FIRST that would have to be engineering, alliance, and team. I don't remember anything about "division."

[Macdaddy549]

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.

[Sunshine]

If you are the number one seed why even ask others their intent before hand? Your number one goal is to pick the best alliance for your team......... It only seems logical to always pick teams that are best for your chances to win.

If you pick the team that is best for your alliance makeup, you are always doing the right thing.

It makes no sense to pick a team that would hurt your chances only to break up another possible alliance. If they say yes, you just hurt your chances. If they told you prior to the picking that they did not want to be with you, you have achieved nothing by asking them if you already decided that they would help your cause. You should pick them anyways. Their opinion of the best alliance is for them and is not necessarily in your best interests.

Pick the teams that are best for you and if you breakup possible agreed upon alliances along the way, so be it.

IMHO, never pick a team that you really do not want to be with you in an attempt to breakup that alliance. It can also backfire on you. What if they say yes? Are you going to be mad at them because they changed their mind and rethought their options after you put them in a possible bad situation?

It makes no sense to me to ask before hand if you have done your homework and the scouting team has a plan. Go with your plan and the strengths that the scouting team has put together. It's always the best that you can do.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Im pretty sure this is not un-GP.
You yourself wants a strong alliance, so you would try to pick the strongest alliance. I know there are many teams who would NOT tell you what they are going to do in alliance picking if they are in the top 8. So going up and asking them would be your doing, which means it would be your call if you thought it was un-GP. The #1 seed at GLR picked alliance partners in the top 8. They all said no. Im pretty sure this was Defensive picking, However, They were all strong partners and im sure they wouldnt have minded them being on their team if they by some chance had said yes.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Macdaddy549

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.

I think they might have tried that in the early years of alliances, maybe the first one. I'm not sure, though, so I'd have to look it up. It's also been done at offseasons. It makes for a more interesting eliminations, but teams aren't going to be happy that they can't pick the powerhouse next door--and then you get teams throwing matches to avoid the top 8, which has been discussed elsewhere.