Is competing at multiple regionals REALLY fair ?

[kramarczyk]

Originally Posted by Damien1247

I wouldn't necessarily say intentional strategy because I can't say they did it with that intent. I misspoke earlier when I said wouldn't I should of said didn't.

I think we can safely say that it was an intentional strategy.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...994#post727994

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by Sgreco27

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

We can have a whole discussion about what you pointed out here. And I am sure that not all of us will agree with each other, simply because we are all different. All the regionals that I have watched/been to, the 3rd alliance partner was a great asset to the alliance. I understand that the 3rd alliance partner was usually a lap runner who gained the alliance an extran 20 points or so, but at the same time some teams changed their strategy to play defense throughout the game. At florida regional, team 342 was a third pick by team 179 and team 69. They kept team 103 away from the ball which crippled the alliance of 108, 103, and 395. Also team 148 played defense at championship. Maybe we all didn't notice them enough because of other robots hurdling and enough actions going on around the field, but Robowranglers kept opponents from capping/knocking the ball off/kept the ball away from their opponent. From all the games I have seen in FIRST, each alliance partners played important role. It was based upon teams' strategy to either put up more points for the alliance or play defense.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

We can have a whole discussion about what you pointed out here. And I am sure that not all of us will agree with each other, simply because we are all different. All the regionals that I have watched/been to, the 3rd alliance partner was a great asset to the alliance. I understand that the 3rd alliance partner was usually a lap runner who gained the alliance an extran 20 points or so, but at the same time some teams changed their strategy to play defense throughout the game. At florida regional, team 342 was a third pick by team 179 and team 69. They kept team 103 away from the ball which crippled the alliance of 108, 103, and 395. Also team 148 played defense at championship. Maybe we all didn't notice them enough because of other robots hurdling and enough actions going on around the field, but Robowranglers kept opponents from capping/knocking the ball off/kept the ball away from their opponent. From all the games I have seen in FIRST, each alliance partners played important role. It was based upon teams' strategy to either put up more points for the alliance or play defense.

I definitely agree with what you are saying. The 3rd alliance partner is always a necessary part of any successful alliance. I just think that this year the first two teams on an alliance could win without a third partner a lot easier than they could in previous years.

I think that the amount of points that two good hurdlers with decent hybrid modes collected in a match was too much for most lapbots to compete with. Some of the really good hurdlers were just as fast as some of the lapbots. I also found that some of the really good hurdlers could get around the track and hurdle just as fast as some lapbots could do a lap.(I don't mean to say anything bad about lapbots, as many times they were important to an a alliance).

[=Martin=Taylor=]

[

Originally Posted by Sgreco27

Another problem I can see with this is that if a team wants to be picked by the #1 seed, then they could intentionally lose to fall out of the top 8. If a team intentionally loses they can hurt a team on their alliance that wants to win.

Overdrive wasn't a great representaion of making fair alliances because the third partner didn't matter as much as it had in previous games. In games where 3rd alliance partners were more valuable, the part of alliance selection when it goes backwards(8-1) had a bigger advantage to the lower seeded alliance partners. Because of this the lower seeded alliances would gain ground on the higher seeded alliances in their second pick. (don't get me wrong, I thought Overdrive was a great game. This is simply the reason I believe that the top alliances were even more successful than usual) I do not beleive this to be a problem.

Maybe not at the regional level, but at the championship the 3rd partner is always EXTREMELY important.

On our Curie alliance all three teams hurdled and traded off defense. In this method we were able to outmaneuver defensive robots. If one robot was slowed down by defenders another took the ball.

The alliance that won Curie (67, 16, 348) won largely due to the their third robot. 348 was a ruthless defender, that could get in front of other teams and dramatically slow them down. There was just no outmaneuvering them...

The entire front end of our robot got bent in during the finals on Curie

[EricH]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

I also never said that I want the veteran powerhouses to make themselves lose, just to encourage them to chose others that aren't going to Atlanta.

I'm just going to say this-- While the above is a noble goal, it's often hard to both win and choose teams who aren't going to Atlanta. If you can do both parts, great. If not, then you'll have to choose. How you make the choice is up to your team, and your team alone. I'm not going to criticize either choice. Sometimes, you can do both. Then, is there a choice?

[tennispro9911]

Sometimes you can do both, but there are a lot of teams that aren't going to atlanta. I would say that if you want to go to Atlanta you should deserve to go to Atlanta and deserve to get picked for eliminations. Teams shouldn't pick old friends just because, but they also shouldn't pick rookies just because they are rookies, or worse teams just because they are worse. In a tough regional, every match is close, and the third alliance partner matters a great deal. That was the case at our regional, and it especially showed at Championships.

[Tom Line]

Fuzzy is one of the most laid-back, nicest guys on the team and I can assure you he only wants what's best for FIRST. Unfortunately, the internet is not a perfect communication tool, and sometimes the ideas you want to convey are not clear after being translated into type. He said he didn't intend to insult anyone - please take that at face value.

We have these same conversations internally. There is a huge learning curve and a huge financial curve in FIRST. I think we're all looking for ways to level the playing field and become more competitive.

I have to agree that having a situation where the top 8 teams could not pick each other improved our regional experience. It prevented the creation of a "super" team of the top 2 hurdlers, and really made everyone feel that they had more than a long shot chance at making it. I would fully support a change to the system where the top 8 teams cannot pick each other.

We need a way to help more of the newer teams get up to speed. The chassis kitbot is one incredible example of a way that worked. Perhaps giving breaks on entry fees to teams that mentor a rookie team is another way. (Do they already do this?)

Perhaps we could allow second year teams to reuse custom-made parts to help budget issues and the learning curve.

I'd like to also see more socials at regional events. Mixers (cards etc) with random seating and partners have worked very well at the off-season events. Having these Thursday night would help you get to know the folks you're about to compete against.

Anyway, just remember we're all here posting for the same reason - we want to improve FIRST.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Anyway, just remember we're all here posting for the same reason - we want to improve FIRST.

How many powerhouse teams are there in FRC? What is their impact, overall, affecting all of the robot competitions, including the regionals and Atlanta? It would be my guess that the powerhouse teams are the minority and will remain so as more and more teams form to compete in FRC.

In your post, it seems several topics are being touched on. The merits of bringing newer teams up to speed more quickly probably deserves its own thread discussion: being more competitive at the events therefore improving the odds of being selected, building/developing teams, identifying resources/factors that can help all of this, and creating opportunities for more social interactions among the teams.

Just some thoughts.

[commodoredl]

I've been watching this thread for a while and I think I'd like to share a bit about my team's experience at multiple regionals.
578 is one of those teams who have been around a while, shows up, takes home one of the minor awards each year or sometimes none at all, and goes home. We haven't won a Regional since 2001, and we haven't been finalists since 2004 (Long enough that no one on our team remembers those robots). We attend 2 regionals, a home regional and an away regional. Unfortunately, we never have enough funds for two regionals and Atlanta, so it's either away regional or Atlanta. It has always been a great experience getting to attend a second regional. Even if we do poorly at the first regional, we know our experience will be able to carry us further at the second regional in the matches. This year we were 4-6 at our first regional, our second we were 6-3 which was enough to make us alliance captains for the first time in 2 years. A second regional can give a team who isn't a "powerhouse" a second chance at showing the other teams that they mean business.
You've been asking how "powerhouse teams" attending multiple regionals can be a bad thing. But from the point of view of "just another FIRST team," attending a second regional even if we miss out on Atlanta or a Championship is the best part of our season. Our drivers get a chance to learn the game, and our team gets a second chance at winning an award. The people we meet and places we see more than make up for a dominant #1 alliance who can still make the playoffs entertaining most of the time anyways.

[Akash Rastogi]

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by lilstogi11

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

Couldn't agree with you more, coming from a team that many would consider good (27) I can tell you that those kids put in a ton of work. Find one of them at competition and ask for their schedule. Yes, their hours are scheduled. Some of them are never allowed to leave the pits or the stands. Being good requires hard work and dedication. There is a quote from Bill Gates about this:

Originally Posted by Bill Gates

You will NOT make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with car phone, until you earn both.

You have to work for success so stop complaining about teams that are dedicated and reap the rewards.

[tim_reiher]

Originally Posted by lilstogi11

"There is no substitute for hard work." Thomas A. Edison

Simply and perfectly put.

This may have been said before, but bears repeating.

If you are unsatisfied with your end product, or performance, grumbling and venting on these forums is not what you should do. What this should be, instead, is an opportunity. Work hard, and improve. One of the goals of FIRST is to inspire, and the feeling of personal accomplishment, pride, and confidence from having improved yourself and your team is a great source of inspiration. You may not be as successful as Wildstang, or Hammond. But this inspiration, and character gained from such a learning experience as FIRST, is plenty a reward unto itself.

[IKE]

I would like to add that it takes more than just hard work, it takes smart work. What I mean by this is that you have to work hard at smart things.

In college all too often I saw people spend hours and hours working on a homework problem only to turn in an incomplete problem. While hardwork is admirable, that was not smart work. The students that get the good grades either worked in groups, or talked with a TA/prof when they ran into roadblocks.

This is one of the beautiful things about FIRST. Teams are more than happy to explain their methods for success. Having a few years of bad runs. Talk to a team doing well. Philosophically opposed to their way of doing things then talk to another team whose accomplishments you respect. If you repeat this enough times you will either learn from a team with a similar philosophy that has success, or you may learn you have a loosing philosophy that needs to be refreshed in order to be more competitive.

One philosophy that all the good teams do is find a way to compete in more than one regional, and if they can go to the Championship. Reason being is that they get more exposure to great ideas that way and can find out what is working for others.

Having competed in a lot of other high school and Collegiate design series, FIRST is one of the only programs I have seen that will literally give you all of their best secrets just by asking. Pretty amazing really.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

[

Maybe not at the regional level, but at the championship the 3rd partner is always EXTREMELY important.

On our Curie alliance all three teams hurdled and traded off defense. In this method we were able to outmaneuver defensive robots. If one robot was slowed down by defenders another took the ball.

The alliance that won Curie (67, 16, 348) won largely due to the their third robot. 348 was a ruthless defender, that could get in front of other teams and dramatically slow them down. There was just no outmaneuvering them...

The entire front end of our robot got bent in during the finals on Curie

I have to agree with this.

Our alliance was three hurdling robots. When we were tied 1-1 in the finals on Archimedes, and had been decimated in the second match, we put a new strategy in play. Everyone was expecting us to play offense, since we had been a strong offensive player all season, so we started our robot as defense and put 1024 and 177 on offense. When the other alliance caught on that 177 was scoring, they went over to play defense on them, so we started scoring instead, and let the other robots pile up in the corner. It was a little messier than that on the field, but that's the concept that allowed our alliance to win the final Archimedes match and make it to Einstein.

On Einstein, however, the winning Curie alliance destroyed us with their defense. During the second semifinals match, I think all three of our robots were so tangled they were immobile. It was pretty frustrating standing in the alliance station, unable to do anything about the situation.

This shows that while the third alliance partner choice was great against one alliance (on Archimedes), it didn't hold up as well against another (on Einstein). Curie's alliance's third partner was also important in their strategy against our alliance. It's not all about the offensive "powerhouses", strategy is key.

[Mike Schreiber]

Note: this is thread has gone way off topic from multiple regionals and I will continue that trend.

Originally Posted by lilstogi11

I just have one thing to say to people who complain about the success of those 'dominating' teams such as 254, 71, 25, 233, 1114, 67 and many others that I hope puts an end to that debate:

"There is no substitute for hard work."- Thomas A. Edison

+$0.02

Although I do like the quote I don't completely agree with how applicable it is. Hypothetically, I can work at a mill for 2 hours making a part from a drawing that I worked equally hard on. Yes I am successful and the part works, but I spent 2 hours more than a team with a CNC mill that doesn't need to work as hard or as long to achieve the same thing. Or they could order the part and get in machined professionally...I hate to say it but...there are some circumstances in which cash can be a substitute for hard work. With more time and resources there is not an even playing field.

I am not saying by any means that the 'power house' teams don't deserve to repeat their victories and that they shoulded be rewarded for their achievements, but I think rookie teams need more of a fighting chance. The rookie regional was a great example of teams with a near (not perfectly) even playing field competing.

On the comment of GLR and the no ultimate alliance I didn't like what happened at all. No, not because we denied 66 and as the third seed could not take 67, 217 or join with 47 in the second seed but because it stopped the competing alliances from doing the best they could do, possibly setting a new national highscore or a teams personal record. Yes, they can do their personal best with anyone in their alliance provided their alliance partners don't impede their abilities or rack up penalties, but it's a different scenario.

I know I'm arguing both to even the playing field and allow the veterans to gang up, but I'm just trying to point out that it's a flawed system. No matter what we change and how we do things we can not perfect the system. Short of specifying exactly what can be used as a resource and how much can be spent and providing those resources to every team therefore partially stunting creativity and innovation in teams that want to go beyond that there is no way to even the playing field perfectly. Even then there is a matter of prior knowledge and man power some teams have more people who are more educated or experienced.

Flawed as it may be, FIRST is still a great program with great people and certainly a great community. Nothing is perfect and competitions can't leave everyone happy. There can only be one winning alliance, but instead of complaining about how good they are we should learn from them, and even if we can't beat them in FIRST strive to use what they teach us to better to world.

+0.02 and a corny ending