Unusual number of teams declining

[JHay]

I saw no declines at TC, as far as I can recall.

[Grim Tuesday]

You guys are all talking about a decline at FLR; The decline was from an alliance captain, which went on to go into the finals.

[thefro526]

In reference to the declines in NJ, there were a lot of unknown teams in the top 8 that seemed to have floated in. I didn't see a decline that wasn't justified, IMO.

[Austinmead]

in the sandiego regional one team was declined 2 times, by teams in the top 8.... one of the teams was a stuck up team so noone was surprised but two in a row was like a record lol

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Austinmead

in the sandiego regional one team was declined 2 times, by teams in the top 8.... one of the teams was a stuck up team so noone was surprised but two in a row was like a record lol

Haha, the same thing happened on Curie last year, but they did it so that no one could pick the powerhouse teams.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I don't think we're going to see as many declines this year because of teh various roles the game requires and the seeding system

hopefully we don't see a replay of the Newton 2006 Alliance Selections...

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

I don't think we're going to see as many declines this year because of teh various roles the game requires and the seeding system

hopefully we don't see a replay of the Newton 2006 Alliance Selections...

I wasn't around to see that. What happend?

[alicen]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I mean when you got a team that's not showing up for matches making the top eight you know you got a bankrupt system.

i remember in my freshman year, there was a team there that hardly moved ten feet the entire regional, but ended up in the top 8. and this was before the seeding system changed.

i personally don't think there is a "right" way to do it, but if teams actually converse with one another, you'd be surprised how quickly your team is wanted on an alliance
it's not the bot that makes the team great, it's the team that makes the bot great.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by AmoryG

I wasn't around to see that. What happend?

The number 1 seed kept selecting teams within the top 8 who then declined. Because they declined, they had to pick up teams outside of the top 8. This broke up many of the predicted powerhouse alliances (Newton that year was stacked with 25, 111, 1114, 987, 254, 71, 968, and tons of other insanely good teams).

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Austinmead

one of the teams was a stuck up team so noone was surprised but two in a row was like a record lol

That's a broad, sweeping generalization about a whole group of people, eh? Could it have been just strategy, like most declining teams have done before?

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by Austinmead

in the sandiego regional one team was declined 2 times, by teams in the top 8.... one of the teams was a stuck up team so noone was surprised but two in a row was like a record lol

If you are not in the top 8, declining means that you would rather not compete than compete with the inviting alliance. That could be interpreted as an insult. If you are in the top 8, you have EARNED the right to captain your own alliance and execute your own strategy. In that case, declining an invitation is not and should not be taken as an insult.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Austinmead

in the sandiego regional one team was declined 2 times, by teams in the top 8.... one of the teams was a stuck up team so noone was surprised but two in a row was like a record lol

It's not a record, and it's a highly strategic move. I've seen the #1 seed in a Championship division ask 2 really good top 8 teams, that they knew would decline, to an alliance. 2 declines later, they picked another really good top 8 team, who accepted. I'm pretty sure that there's been a case of 3 or more declines before, too.

As for calling a team "stuck up", that's more insulting than any perceived insult delivered by a decline.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by rwood359

If you are not in the top 8, declining means that you would rather not compete than compete with the inviting alliance. That could be interpreted as an insult. If you are in the top 8, you have EARNED the right to captain your own alliance and execute your own strategy. In that case, declining an invitation is not and should not be taken as an insult.

maybe the team is ranked just outside the top eight (say tenth). and hoping to get into the top eight so that they may pick their own alliance.... for those of us who remember finger lakes last year, we all know that could backfire.

(610 was ranked 12th and declined a pick from a alliance caption. they ended up one spot out from being a alliance caption).

[rwood359]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

maybe the team is ranked just outside the top eight (say tenth). and hoping to get into the top eight so that they may pick their own alliance.... for those of us who remember finger lakes last year, we all know that could backfire.

(610 was ranked 12th and declined a pick from a alliance caption. they ended up one spot out from being a alliance caption).

I hadn't considered that case. A mild form of Russian Roulette.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by EricH

It's not a record, and it's a highly strategic move. I've seen the #1 seed in a Championship division ask 2 really good top 8 teams, that they knew would decline, to an alliance. 2 declines later, they picked another really good top 8 team, who accepted. I'm pretty sure that there's been a case of 3 or more declines before, too.

As for calling a team "stuck up", that's more insulting than any perceived insult delivered by a decline.

Yes, there have more than 3 declines.

I believe the year was '07 or 08', at Eastern Michigan University. During the picking, the #1 team tried to pick nearly all the top 8, one at a time. I was walking around the concourse and heard the first decline, then the semi-gasp when the second decline happened. I stuck my head in for the 3rd.

It had actually be a strategy discussed prior to the picking to break up a number of potential super-teams that year. There was a very long discussion here about it as well (with some people, as always, suggesting that teams were not gracious, were stuck up, etc), which was definitely NOT the case.