Do you like the seeding system?

[JackG]

After hearing plenty of people bagging on the new seeding system, I wanted to know how much of the FIRST community is aginst it. Last year's double/triple score super cell rule took some heat but it was also supported by many people. This year, I have not heard a single person speak up in favor of this system. So, please vote in the poll, and help gauge how many of us support or oppose this system.

[Steve W]

No! BTW there is no poll attached.

Ahhh now it's there. Still no!

[JackG]

Patience, patience. Even with copying and pasting I cannot add a poll instantaneously.

[Koko Ed]

You should have put a no in gigantic letters.
I would have taken that one.

[Chuck Glick]

No. The ranking system allows teams who have never attended a match with a robot to be ranked in the top eight (Bayou Regional). It also rewards mediocre play and severely punishes the winning team if they have any penalties... since when did losing get you ranked higher than the winning team?

This completely counter intuitive ranking system is only going to hinder the growth of FIRST. No one wants to join a "competition" where you can do better losing then winning. It gives no insentive to go out and give it your all every match.

At least with the old system of Win-Loss-Tie, you deserved your rank. Now some teams would get lucky schedules and end up ranking higher but that is always going to happen so people need to quit whining.

Go back to the "old" Win-Loss-Tie system, its easier for spectators to understand and rewards those who came to play, not just sit motionless on the field.

[V_Chip]

I agree KoKo Ed. "NO"

I understand that FIRST is attempting to make it so everyone wins . . . but in reality not everyone can. You fight and win ranking. Not lose for it.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Vector MycroftH

I agree KoKo Ed. "NO"

I understand that FIRST is attempting to make it so everyone wins . . . but in reality not everyone can. You fight and win ranking. Not lose for it.

So basically it's FIRST's version of No Child Left Behind. Because as my wife said if no one gets ahead no one gets left behind.

[Jim Meyer]

Where's the "It's too early to tell" button option? I don't think it's fair to judge it until after we see how it plays out in the 7 matches we usually get at nationals.

[JesseK]

It DOES do its job by discouraging defense in Quals once alliance partners understand what SS/CP mean. It also does its job in greatly rewarding teams who persevere with a difficult schedule.

It severely falls short in the 'competition' part of coopertition. Why not just put everyone on the same alliance and make them cooperate towards the same goal? With it, there's no point in trying to get spectators to watch because it'll just become another convoluted ranking system just like college football.

It severely falls short during week 1 when only one alliance performs well and one of the robots on that alliance gets an inadvertent penalty*. The alliance where the robots didn't or barely moved comes out on top in the seeding scores, which are much longer term.

*let's face it -- penalties this year are practically unavoidable -- coming down off a bump onto a ball even though there was no way to know a ball was there still gets someone a penalty for 3" incursion??? This is really my only rant about this year's game.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Jim Meyer

Where's the "It's too early to tell" button option? I don't think it's fair to judge it until after we see how it plays out in the 7 matches we usually get at nationals.

The poll is set to close in 45 days, so you can vote even after Championships are over. You can vote anytime, so everyone can make up their own mind at their convenience.

[Rizner]

I (for the most part) like the new seeding system, but teams aren't using it correctly. There are strategies not utilized aside from scoring for your opponents and I'm surprised not many teams have played with them and how many jump straight to the idea to score for opponents. It could be a great system if used correctly, but sadly it isn't.

[dtengineering]

I like the idea.

I like the idea that teams should focus on building robots that play the game well, rather than robots that prevent other teams from playing the game well. I like the idea that there is no honour in "blowing out" weak opponents. I like the idea that students have to work together to develop a strategy that is good for everyone. These are all good ideas.

But I don't think this scoring system is a good way to achieve them.

I'm sufficiently open-minded to give the system a try before reaching a final opinion on the system, but I think it has some serious weaknesses from a practical point of view. The goals of the qualifying rounds are now just too far removed from the goals of the elmination rounds.

Jason

[KF987]

Could you imagine if pitchers threw lobs to the opposing team, or if hockey teams played with an empty net? That what this ranking systems does it think.

-Keaton

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I like the idea.

I like the idea that teams should focus on building robots that play the game well, rather than robots that prevent other teams from playing the game well. I like the idea that there is no honour in "blowing out" weak opponents. I like the idea that students have to work together to develop a strategy that is good for everyone. These are all good ideas.

But I don't think this scoring system is a good way to achieve them.

I'm sufficiently open-minded to give the system a try before reaching a final opinion on the system, but I think it has some serious weaknesses from a practical point of view. The goals of the qualifying rounds are now just too far removed from the goals of the elmination rounds.

Jason

They are the complete opposite of one another.
It's insane.

[A_Reed]

No, I don't like this years system. It seems to be rather confusing to me as far as picking out the attributes necessary to make up a winning alliance.

It works in theory in that it should put a spotlight on offensive oriented teams, or teams that are playing GP and 'how the game is supposed to be played'.

I know some people don't like defense because it hinders the abilities of other teams and doesn't let the robots shine. In the past few years FIRST has tried to find ways to kill off the 'defensive juggernaut' style of play through various means, but as the time comes around on Saturday afternoon and the top 8 are making their picks defense still comes into play as a picking factor and sometimes it is very beneficial to the alliance, defense wins championships (we won a regional this way). In this system however playing defense in qualifiers becomes a lose-lose situation. You may attempt to play defense in qualifiers but you hinder your chances of moving up to be picked on Saturday afternoon.

This system is a two headed beast. On one side you have the qualifiers where you need to excel almost completely on your individual strengths to prove to be worthy of being picked by upping your ranking points and then on the other you have the elimination rounds where it no longer matters what the score is as long as your alliance has a one point lead. This has been achieved for years by picking a well rounded alliance of teams that complement your skill set and complement the skills needed to 'play the game how the GDC meant it to be', this includes playing heavy defense.

After only watching one webcast I have made the observation that this system almost hides every other attribute besides how well you can shoot the ball. It is a really fuzzy system of determining the true power of one robot or another in more than just offense. From a spectators point of view from one weekend it was really hard to really pick a favorite or determine the slightest hint of dominance and who was going to be in the #1 seed. The only way to see these things is going to be heavy duty scouting and for a event that is looking to haul in more spectators then ever this is not a good thing.

-One more thing that I just realized this system veils compared to a W-L-T system. As you go out to the field for qualification you have a certain alliance strategy in mind, if you completely disregard your teammates you have a high chance of ending up with a big fat loss on your record indicating you may not be a very good cooperative alliance partner on Saturday afternoon. Being stubborn this year is hidden because of a lack of a definitive WLT record.