Do you like the seeding system?

[Martinez]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There are plenty of us who understand these rules perfectly well. We get what needs to be done to succeed in this system. But we refuse to sacrifice the reason we started competiting in FIRST to begin with simply to rank higher, and we're angry that we're being asked to.
There are plenty of engineering competitions where you don't compete head-to-head against other competitors. You simply try and obtain the highest score, fastest time, or lightest weight contraption. FRC has been different because it adapted the sports model, direct, head-to-head competition. It took a model that's engaging and fun to watch and adapted it.
There are many of us who aren't willing to give that up. We're not going to sacrifice the reasons we picked FIRST over other competitions to begin with, or to reduce the quality of the product delivered to the crowd. We're not going to throw matches to seed higher, and we're pissed that the new ranking system is asking us to do so.

QFT

To quote one of our mentors: "Any game that asks you to score against yourself in order to get ahead in life is dumb."

[Martinez]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

This is an excellent point. Showing a "final score" on the scoreboard and announcing a "winner" for the crowd, but having the real score and the real winner be something else on the other side of the curtain is at best confusing and at worst disingenuous. Can you imagine watching a sporting event where the score on the scoreboard is not really the actual score, which is something calculated behind the scenes but never shown? The goal this year was for the game to be enjoyable and easy to understand for spectators. If FIRST really believes in the cooperition seeding score system, then let that be the score that is shown on the field, and let the crowd see for themselves that the winning team lost and the losing team won.

Paul of 217 started doing this at FLR in order to explain to the crowd what the ___ was going on. He did a great job MCing by the way and hope gets the chance over at Michigan!

[gbbayless]

System is terrible. At the end of Friday's competition there were 3 teams that has a win loss record of 5-1. One of the teams was in 10th place, one was in
30th place and one was in 38th place. Our team ended with a 7-2 record on the win loss and we ended up in 36th position for the ranking. Did not get selected for the finals.

[keericks]

Sorry for the double post here, but this thread seemed like a good place to share as well.

<soapbox>
As I reflect on the numerous threads & posts flooding CD on this topic, I find myself wanting to comment on the greater objective/direction that this year's "seeding system" is promoting. Aside from the strategies, rules, approaches, legal vs. ethical, and all the other ideas that have been discussed here, I would like draw the attention to what I feel is an alarmingly slippery slope FIRST seems to be approaching by engraining the "coopertition" concept into "competition" rules. A little background may help explain my position:

1. I've coached my 11th grade son's FLL/FRC teams since he was in the 4th grade. As a FIRST Operational Partner I've run one of the country's largest FLL State Championship tournaments for the past four years, that attract 750+ students and 85+ FLL teams to the California's Central Valley each year. I'm a huge fan and ambassador of FIRST and its impact on the youth in our communities.

2. At the 2006 World Festival, my FLL team won 1st place in the first ever FLL Alliance Challenge with the Ocean Odyssey missions, where we worked with 3 other teams from the U.S and Denmark - our first feel for true FIRST coopertition - (the Denmark team didn't even speak english) IT WAS AWESOME!

3. I've also coached every sport my 3 kids have been involved in from baseball, football, hockey, soccer, etc. - and have always appreciated the distinct differences a program like FLL/FRC brings to kids who gravitate away from traditional sporting programs - and the opportunities they find here.

So with all that said, I can tell you from my experiences that a large part of the attaction of FIRST is the packaging of learning (math/science/tech) WITH the excitment of COMPETITION that speaks to our innate competitive spirit that I believe drives the human race towards accomplishment, improvement, and connecting with others. And while I'm not wanting get all philosophical here, I can't help but feel this year's game philosophy is squelching this spirit AND forcefully directing our brightest minds into a "thinkset" that I feel is ultimately weakening us as a society/community.

It's been mentioned in other threads/posts how there are plenty of opportunties for coopertition off the competition field - and I agree 100%. I'm proud of how well this program promotes and practices it (this web site is a classic example) - our team would be lost without it! Even as we get onto the competition field - the alliance format allows for tons of cooperation! But let's cooperate to triumph over the opposition! What's wrong with that? Opposition is a force in life that we must all learn to deal with - and I've always felt that FIRST's approach of competing & dealing with opposition by THINKING & USING YOUR MIND was the perfect answer ... Not by removing the opposition and morphing it into cooperation. Opposition doesn't always WANT to cooperate, yes?

But I do fear FIRST is trying to change the face of competition ... as strong competition seems to be viewed more and more as a bad thing, so bad that we have to start changing the rules/game to MAKE SURE that we cooperate. I know I'm not alone in my thinking as I've seen others lightly comment on this elsewhere, but I want to put my stake in the ground and call a spade a spade. Let's not water-down honest competition that boasts "the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat" - it is afterall what makes this program tick - and if you don't belive me, look at all the posts of how teams are trying to use the coopertition rules to - do what? WIN!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of win at all costs, and/or winning is the only important thing. However, "striving to win" in a gracious and professional manner brings with it amazing results ... many more than "striving to cooperate" will ever see. I'm sorry, but that's just weak.

I understand the lofty touchy-feely goal of everyone's a winner, but we don't live in a world where everyone's a winner, nor should we want to, IMO. In Pixar's movie, The Incredible's, the villian Syndrome wants to sell his super inventions to everyone in the world, giving everybody superpowers - "Because when everyone is super ... (evil laugh) no one will be!" Kind of corny, I know, but it speaks volumes.

However, not being a winner, doesn't mean you're a loser either. The FRC program and its outcomes are dealing with different degrees of success, yes? But it's the COMPETITION that creates the scale on which we measure those degrees. It's the COMPETITION that makes us want to move up those scales each and every time we COMPETE. It's the COMPETITION that makes us and everyone around us, better. You can't call something a competition, and then strip out all the elements that engage our competitive spirits. It's crushing, depressing, and outright frustrating.

So as I step off my soapbox, I just wanted to share my thoughts around the subject and hope they serve as a warning to FIRST and to join in solidarity with others that have spoken out against this new system and its inherent problems. My concerns may go deeper, because I'm so passionate about what this program has always been about, and I'm concerned about its future. But I suppose I could have justed posted the following:

Minimize Competitive Components = Minimize Growth & Attraction & Spirit

Force "coopertition" through rules/regulation = choke the competitive spirit that's made this program what it is

</soapbox>

[GGCO]

Here are my thoughts.

First, anyone who agrees with these rules should read "Atlas Shrugged".

Second, I know that my team will have a serious conversation about implementing this strategy.

Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.

Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism. While socialism, and the GDC, may have had good intentions...both only encourage cheating and mediocracy. If teams decide to go with this strategy, spectators will be confused, members will be frustrated, and the sport will lose it's credibility.


I believe that even if a team is in last place the FIRST community does a great job of making them feel like winners, and anyways we all know that it's not about winning. Hopefully, in the future, the GDC will have more faith in the teams to uphold the values of FIRST rather than trying to enforce them.

[keericks]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.

Amen brother! My previous rant didn't quite get to that point - but I'm glad you had the courage to point it out. AGREED!

[Jeff Waegelin]

I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:

Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.

You do this, it removes the case where the losing alliance gets more seeding points than the winning alliance, and it removes much of the incentive to go for the "6v0" strategy. It worked reasonably well for qualifying in 2003 and before (though I still prefer W-L-T scoring) and would take care of most of the biggest complaints.

All this being said, I think the system worked reasonably well in Manchester. I'm sure I'm about to be flamed by some team that lost one or two matches and seeded in the 20's, but most of the teams that seeded high at BAE were also the teams that I scouted and had performed well in their matches. There were, as always, exceptions, but that happens with ANY ranking system - we've all seen the teams that get declined multiple times because they squeaked into the top 8 on a fluke, before. By and large, though, I think things sorted themselves out well at one regional, at least. I'd be interested to know why things turned out so poorly at other events. Any thoughts on why?

[Bruceb]

O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.

Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism.

I would check your definition of socialism. Under your definition the old system was also socialist! (oh no!...not socialism!..what could be worse!??!?!). If I'm with 111 and they scored 25 moonrocks while I sat in the corner and did nothing, we both got 2 ranking points, even though we did not 'produce' the same amount.

Not trying to start a debate, just pointing something out...

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:

Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.

I think you're onto something here.

It rewards teams who score well whether they win or not. I like it, because it emphasizes doing your best and playing your heart out which is what I firmly believe this is what it's all about. If FIRST wants to de-emphasize winning, but still keep matches exciting and make sure teams are doing their best then maybe they should look into this.

[Rizner]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Any time a governing body rewards someone who doesn't produce very much the same amount as someone who does, it is considered socialism. While socialism, and the GDC, may have had good intentions...both only encourage cheating and mediocracy.

I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Third, the scoring system is basically socialism.

So the scoring system is a nationalized institution owned by the government paid for by taxes on all citizens for the general public good (not unlike the police, firefighters, public libraries, public education, mass transit, Interstate highways and the military)?

I don't like the new scoring system, but socialism it is not.

[ebarker]

Okie Dokie,

Lets try to stick to the merits of the debate and focus on the issues.

Perjorative labels isn't going to get us anywhere.

With all due respect !

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Bruceb

O.K. Some of you are saying we should quit bashing the new seeding system and just work within it to the benefit of our team so try out this scenario. Let's say my team is on the red alliance and we get together with the members of the blue alliance and get them to agree to score all points for the red alliance so we both get a high number of seeding points. Cool. So our alliance gets ready to play but we discuss the finale period amongst ourselves and hatch a plan to get even more points just for ourselves. We decide that we are going to score as many points as possible for the blue alliance during the finale period without giving them enough to win. That way both alliances get a high number of seeding points but the red alliance also gets a bunch of coopertition bonus points. We win the match and win the higher number of seeding points. Is this what Dean wants? No. Is it fostering GP? No. Is it understanding the new rules and using them to our advantage? Heck yes. So, for those of you that say we should just learn how to use the new system and quit bashing it, be careful what you wish for.
For me, I think Dean has outthought himself and did not for see these types of consequences. I hope I don't see this type of thing happening. It is not what FIRST is about but the new rules are fostering this type of activity. I hope they learn by next year that if they want teams to help each other then the game had better be designed to foster that type of activity rather than some ridiculous seeding point scheme that the audience we are supposed to be gathering cannot possibly understand.

If you do this, do you believe that any alliance would believe you from that time forward?

I know that my scouting has a column for trust. Basically we ask a few questions that we already know the answer to, but to which many would not want to announce to a scout team. We also watch the matches for 'cooperation' and 'quick strat changes'.

I know that if we saw that happen, we'd not pick you. I could even see teams that decline your invite to an alliance because they don't trust you.

I'm one that says learn the system and use it, yet I would not use your 'tactic'. There are far better ways of using the system as it's designed. If this is the only strategy you can see within the rulesset, then (I believe) you have missed the point of how the seeding system was designed.

You will ultimately be known for what you do, not what you say. Consider this when you make these decisions.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Rizner

I personally don't think the idea was to reward someone who doesn't produce very much, but instead rank teams in a way which takes into account how difficult their opponents are, which the previous ranking system didn't do.
Is this the right way to do that? Probably not, but I think that's what GDC's (or whoever made the final seeding decision's) goal was.

I agree with your perspective on the probable intent of the seeding system.

If everybody played the game to maximize their own score, then this seeding system would meet that intent very well, I think.

The issue is not the seeding system. If F.I.R.S.T. needs to take any feeback from this it is that the change should have been highlighted at Kickoff and discussed. It is a big change and you know, most engineers don't appreciate being surprized by a big change.