Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?

[Steve Ketron]

If GP is the highest standard that FIRST goes by then FIRST should uphold teams to that standard. At a competition, you can tell if a team is throwing a match and if so disqualify them from eliminations based on not following GP. I believe a couple years ago FIRST disqualified the championship winning team because they were not using gracious professionalism. Do the same for FRC.


Yes, more qualifying matches would solve the problem for good, but until we can figure out a way to do that and still meet time constraints (Michigan district system, anyone?), 1-8 8-1 is the selection process which produces the most fun elimination tournament for everyone.

Even with 12 matches 67 selected 217 at both the districts they attended and were clearly the winners of every match. Don't you think it would have been more exciting to have those teams select other alliance partners and compete. Think about it, How fun is it when you are the #8 and you get the 8th/9th pick but you compete against the #1/2/24 pick. I think I have a better chance going against only one top team than competing against the two best teams.

[Chris is me]

About RP: I think it's a really awesome system for offensive teams and offensive games. If you have a stacked qualifier and win your matches, you deserve the first seed.

The problem arises in that it becomes unproductive to play defense. There were some standout defensive teams this year with powerful drive systems that could hold anyone down, but winning matches by plyaing defense would keep your RP low.

My initial thought would me to make RP the difference between the winning score and the losing score, with a low RP desired, but then rather than rewarding the best teams you reward teams that played similar caliber alliances.

Still, RP is the best we got. Sorry defense, that's what the second pick is for

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

If GP is the highest standard that FIRST goes by then FIRST should uphold teams to that standard. At a competition, you can tell if a team is throwing a match and if so disqualify them from eliminations based on not following GP. I believe a couple years ago FIRST disqualified the championship winning team because they were not using gracious professionalism. Do the same for FRC.

The problem is, how do you define gracious professionalism? I've heard people say that playing defense on high scorers is un-GP, and I've heard people say throwing matches so your companion team can be in the top 8 is. You can't just say "that's not graciously professional" and call it at that.

Besides, I challenge you to find one team on Einstien that's not full of gracious professionals. (For your own sake don't post if you actually believe a team on the field was un-GP, we don't want internet drama)

Even with 12 matches 67 selected 217 at both the districts they attended and were clearly the winners of every match. Don't you think it would have been more exciting to have those teams select other alliance partners and compete. Think about it, How fun is it when you are the #8 and you get the 8th/9th pick but you compete against the #1/2/24 pick. I think I have a better chance going against only one top team than competing against the two best teams.

I think you're missing the "tition" part of coopertition. Games are designed to be competitive, and one of the rewards for being the first place team is being able to pick your favorite partner. The Top 8 is stacked against the 8th seed, and that's completely intentional; what people forget is taht the first seed EARNED their spot. To the victor go the spoils.

Also, in serpentine 8th seed with 8th and 9th pick can be very deadly, since you get to pick exactly the two partners that work the most well together. While you're picking your first one you have your second pick waiting, so you can pick teams that complement each other.

And many times, there are gems in the rough. If we were 8th seed in newton, we would have our third and fourth choice as alliance partners.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steve Ketron

If GP is the highest standard that FIRST goes by then FIRST should uphold teams to that standard.

Gracious Professionalism is a compass, not a set of calipers. It should be used to guide what you do rather than to measure it.

[JaneYoung]

This has turned into an interesting thread to follow and read. I'm sure Stephanie and the planning committee for the off season event during NI Week are very appreciative of the suggestions that you are offering.

If you have any more rules tweaks/suggestions, please contribute.

Just a small attempt on my part to guide the thread back on track...*cough*


Thanks again,
Jane

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Gracious Professionalism is a compass, not a set of calipers. It should be used to guide what you do rather than to measure it.

Spotlight. Rep. Awesome quote Alan.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Gracious Professionalism is a compass, not a set of calipers. It should be used to guide what you do rather than to measure it.

Undoubtedly one of the best characterizations of "gracious professionalism" that I have yet seen. I want this on a t-shirt.

-dave



.

[thefro526]

For all of the people complaining about the serpentine, I'd LOVE to see a reverse serpentine. Give the #8 Seed the First and Last Pick, and the #1 Seed the Eighth and Ninth Pick. I'd Much rather have the double pick than the first pick.

Also, another thing I want to see, is the ability to start a robot backwards in a spot (Robot Touching the AirLock). In week 5 I had my prog make a program to start like that just for the sheer awesome of it, and it was well, awesome. Nothing get's people's attention like a robot going backwards and then doing a 180 and driving forward.

Finally, I think we should be able to re-load the Outpost HP. This is just one of those things that always bugged me.

[JackN]

Seeing all of these posts saying that 1-8, 1-8 does not even out the playing field, look at the winners of IRI the past 3 years (I picked IRI because it was the first event off of the top of my head I could think of that had non-serpentine draft in serpentine years). In 2006, the finals were the #5 seed (71, 1625 and 910) defeating the #6 seed (233, 217, and 1272). In 2007, you have the #4 seed (111, 1114, 2056, and 494) defeating the #2 seed (47, 33, 68, and 93). Last season was #2 (330, 67, 987, and 68) defeating the #5 seed (1024, 1625, 1126, and 1731). Since the move into the 1-8, 1-8 draft format we have seen the #1 seed lose in the semi-finals every year. We haven't had a number one alliance win since 04 I believe (Andy or Chris could correct me).

I have no huge offseason rule changes, I would like to see the amount of carpet around the edges increase by a couple inches to lessen pinning. I also would like to see the empty cells a different color or maybe remove their nylon covers. I am mildly color blind and have had a very difficult time this season picking them out of piles of moonrocks (it took me more than a second to do, but it was possible). If they are more visible and different it will be much easier for referees to spot if a team has two in their possesion. One major rule change, how about scoring a empty cell in a trailer is worth 4 points instead of 2 points. This would add a twist and would add to teams scoring.

[Magnechu]

I think IRI is a bad example of showing that 1-8 1-8 is superioer to serpentine. IRI has 72 of the best teams in the nation. Every single other event, even the Championship, if the #1 team picks twice in a row, they will face far weaker alliances from say, #4 and down. #2 and #3 will have solid alliances that could give #1 a run for its money, but they will win the majority of the time. At Regionals? Forget about it. The #1 seed will win 75% of the events, if not more.

[FRC4ME]

Originally Posted by thefro526

For all of the people complaining about the serpentine, I'd LOVE to see a reverse serpentine. Give the #8 Seed the First and Last Pick, and the #1 Seed the Eighth and Ninth Pick. I'd Much rather have the double pick than the first pick.

You're forgetting about the ability of the #1 seed to pick others from the top eight; that alone is quite a reward. I rarely see a regional where the #1 or #2 alliance doesn't end up choosing someone further down the line.

The one-decline rule gives the #1 seed yet another reward; the ability to break up an alliance between the #2 seed and another top eight team. Overall, I think the #1 seed gets enough advantages as is.

[railerobotics]

Make sure the head ref has read all of rule updates.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by railerobotics

Make sure the head ref has read all of rule updates.

Well I have IRI covered ...

[Lemonyfresh]

A bunch of the seniors had the idea that it the game would be much better if there were only four teams on the field.