Predictions Week 1: Kickoff

[Marc P.]

I'm not entirely sold on defense this season. Unless I'm blatantly missing something, it seems win/loss ratio does nothing directly in determining seeding/ranks, as it has in the past.

Originally Posted by Section 9.3.9 of the manual

All TEAMS in attendance will be seeded during the qualification matches. If the number of TEAMS in attendance is 'n', they will be seeded '1' through 'n' with '1' being the highest seeded team and 'n' being the lowest seeded TEAM.

The Field Management System will use the following seeding method:

• TEAMS will be seeded in decreasing order by seeding score.
• Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores will then be seeded in decreasing order by their highest coopertition bonus.
• Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores and highest coopertition bonus will then be seeded in decreasing order by cumulative ELEVATED/SUSPENDED points earned by their ALLIANCES throughout the Qualification Matches.
• Any TEAMS also having identical highest coopertition bonuses will then be seeded based on a random sorting by the Field Management System.

Reading through the other sections on seeding points (9.3.4 and 9.3.5), the rankings appear to be directly determined by cumulative match scores, rather than win/loss based Qualifying Points of previous years.

Let's say Redateam plays 10 matches, with solid defense, but not much scoring. Their defense is so good, they win every of their 10 matches by a margin of 2-0. Each match nets them a total of 2 seeding points, with no coopertition bonus, as they shut out each of their opposing alliances. After their 10 undefeated matches, Redateam has 20 total seeding points.

Now Bluateam plays 10 matches, has an excellent kicker, elevates, scores as many points as possible in each match, knowing they can outscore the opposing alliance in each. They convince their alliance partners to not play any defense, so all 3 of their robots are potentially scoring. They win only 5 of their 10 matches, but with an average margin of 5-3. This would mean for each win, Redateam gets 5+(3x2 coopertition bonus) = 11 seeding points. 11 points per winning match x 5 matches won = 55 seeding points, just from their 5 wins. The 4 matches they lost were to Redateam's alliance, where Redateam won 2-0. Bluateam gets the same 2 seeding points Redateam gets, as per section 9.3.4. 4 losing matches x 2 seeding points each = 8 points. After 10 matches, winning only half of them, Bluateam has 63 seeding points, to Redateam's undefeated 20. Bluateam is at a much higher ranking than Redateam, even with a 50% loss ratio.

Getting into the top 8 will be a whole new exercise in strategy, offensive power, and control this season. Any overly dominant team will be carefully scoring for the opposing alliance if they really want to push for #1 seed. With that in mind, I disagree with notion that scores will be low. If teams really understand how this seeding system works, any of the "WOW" robots will be able to push double digit scores if they really wanted to, especially if the stars align and 2 or more solid shooters end up on the same alliance.

Of course, once the elimination matches start, it becomes a whole different ballgame, where defense will play a much larger role. Maybe at that point it would be in Bluateam's best interest to chose Redateam for an alliance partner. Who knows? Will 3 strong offensive robots beat out 2 offensive/1 defensive alliances? Only time will tell, but I'd expect a good show in the midfield fighting for the ball returns either way.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I'm not entirely sold on defense this season. Unless I'm blatantly missing something, it seems win/loss ratio does nothing directly in determining seeding/ranks, as it has in the past.

It does in MI in terms of getting to the State Championship...

[Don Wright]

OH...and I agree...change your name from LookingForward to something else... Sorry...

[Kingofl337]

40 had a weak showing at Suffield and if they want to get as
far as they did last year they are going to have to up their game.

Yes, excellent our plan is working excellently.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

OH...and I agree...change your name from LookingForward to something else... Sorry...

Agreed.

[BrendanB]

I was thinking there was something wrong with the posts. Looking Forward is more in depth and precise.

Thank you for giving us a prediction!

[ShortBang]

I would like to thank this years Looking Forward for his post. Yes, it was not as in depth or well worded as previous Looking Forward posts, but all things get better in time.

Instead of criticizing someone who graciously stepped up to fill a void, why don't we all help him? Instead of posting that criticism you are writing in that reply box, go to your message function, and message him something about your robot that will help him with his future predictions. While our new LF may not have the connections that the old one did, maybe we can help make him better. That's right gentleman (and Ladies) we have the technology, we can rebuild him. We all can contribute to LF and maybe make him, or her, as good, or better if everyone contributes, as the old one.

As for the name change, maybe LF, whoever he is, actually passed on the torch to this person, if not, lets look at this like the Dread Pirate Roberts. The name just get picks up by whoever carries the torch at that time.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by ShortBang

Instead of criticizing someone who graciously stepped up to fill a void, why don't we all help him? Instead of posting that criticism you are writing in that reply box, go to your message function, and message him something about your robot that will help him with his future predictions. While our new LF may not have the connections that the old one did, maybe we can help make him better. That's right gentleman (and Ladies) we have the technology, we can rebuild him. We all can contribute to LF and maybe make him, or her, as good, or better if everyone contributes, as the old one.

I can't say I completely agree with the above...

If he was like "Hey guys! I wanna get Looking Forward type posts up! Who has tips or wants to help out?" it would be appropriate. If he made these predictions without ripping off LF's identity (as several CD members did in regional competition threads), it would be appropriate. But basically, some member that no one knows decided for themselves that they were going to be Looking Forward, a title obviously somewhat held in regard here. And we're all supposed to just go along with that? How do we know there's not anyone better for the job who just decided it wasn't okay to imitate someone?

To new LF: I'm sorry I've been a bit harsh with a bold move. Bold moves are not bad things... but please, change your name or use your normal account though if you want to make predictions, in honor of the real LF.

[ShortBang]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I can't say I completely agree with the above...

If he was like "Hey guys! I wanna get Looking Forward type posts up! Who has tips or wants to help out?" it would be appropriate. If he made these predictions without ripping off LF's identity (as several CD members did in regional competition threads), it would be appropriate. But basically, some member that no one knows decided for themselves that they were going to be Looking Forward, a title obviously somewhat held in regard here. And we're all supposed to just go along with that? How do we know there's not anyone better for the job who just decided it wasn't okay to imitate someone?

To new LF: I'm sorry I've been a bit harsh with a bold move. Bold moves are a good thing. Please, change your name or use your normal account though if you want to make predictions, in honor of the real LF.

It seems the Name issue is really bigger than his predictions. And I really can't argue with what you're saying. Yeah, taking Looking Forward's name is probably wrong. I guess what I was trying to get at was, I know we all liked LF's predictions a heck of a lot, but since it looks like he/she is taking a hiatus, we do need something to fill the void. I am sure his anonymous nature was part of his appeal, so isn't there a way for us to help create this new one?

Man, wouldn't this be a great time for the real LF to stand up and give us some of his wise knowledge?

[Mr. Lim]

Agree with above ^

And having said that, I'd say we have ample technology to create a SUSTAINABLE way to keep producing high-level Looking( )Forward predictions.

Why not create a Google Doc for every week of competition, and have members of CD "apply" to become contributors and editors by PMing the new LookingForward.

Have each contributor and editor promise not to disclose the contents of the Google Docs.

Then just post on CD whatever is in the Google Doc the Wednesday evening before each competition.

The hard work then becomes just making sure your contributors and editors are producing...

What do you think LookingForward?

[Chris is me]

I'm willing to set this up. Basically, only "secret" so that the post is a surprise for most members. Would anyone have any objections to this? I'll extend an olive branch to this poster here to be included, no hard feelings

[Cory]

All the suggestions in the above two posts already exist within the current LF framework. To duplicate them again seems useless. If anything I would just start a thread for each regional where people can make predictions of what teams they think will do well. I don't think it's right for another person to take over the LF format, when LF has said they don't wish for it to exist in a diluted form.

I would hardly say that this person "graciously stepped into the void". They did not contact the real LF to ask if they could use the Looking Forward name. They basically went off on their own and pretended like they were a replacement for the original, when they have nothing to do with it.

[Chris is me]

That's a good point - I had that part of LF's intentions in the back of my head, but forgot to connect the dots before opening my mouth and working with the idea. That happens to me too often.

I'll be posting "for fun predictions" of regionals I know anything about in their respective threads, like I did for KC, but even more informal... just because I like guesswork rather than a desire to replace LF. I guess we'll see what this person does, though I'm sure he's heard you and others.

[V_Chip]

I'm curious as to how he was so accurate with the 175 prediction