Curie Match 100, 28-0

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Madison

I don't understand what's invalid about competing against the whole field of teams by strategically maximizing your seeding points rather than competing against just three teams in a given match. It seems to me that both are competitive strategies, but if you're trying to win the competition, only one makes sense.

I didn't say it was 'invalid' (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I didn't say it was 'invalid' (strawman argument). In fact, I stated that I understood the strategy. I was just was hoping for a competition, not an exhibition on how to shoot goals. If thats what we wanted why not just webcast the practice fields.

I didn't mean to address you, specifically, as this is a discussion I've seen played out a few times -- and some in response to my team's own strategies at two events.

The part I don't understand is how people don't see this sort of thing as competition in the first place. The matches we play don't exist in a vacuum and the results from each -- this season more than any in recent years -- are more important than simply scoring higher than your opponent. I'm sure you understand all of that and my post was simply to illustrate to folks that may not always see the bigger picture that any one person's view of what "competition" actually is may be different than any other.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Madison

The part I don't understand is how people don't see this sort of thing as competition in the first place. The matches we play don't exist in a vacuum and the results from each -- this season more than any in recent years -- are more important than simply scoring higher than your opponent. I'm sure you understand all of that and my post was simply to illustrate to folks that may not always see the bigger picture that any one person's view of what "competition" actually is may be different than any other.

I agree ... to a point.

The definition of 'competition' is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.

The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a 'spectator friendly' competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.

Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal ... to get stuck). It's a strategy, and it's valid, but it's also one that challanges ones ideals of what a 'competition' is about.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I agree ... to a point.

The definition of 'competition' is probably the sticking point. Many see each match as a competition, while others see the regional/championship as the competition. Thus they have very different goals during each match.

The point I was trying to get at (and probably failing miserably) is that if FIRST wants a 'spectator friendly' competition, then they should create rules that foster/nurture that type of game/strategy. The rules, as they stand, create a strategic disconnect with attempting to win every match since it may be in an alliances interest to not play for the win.

Again, I understand the strategy and I understand why some will employ it (just like stuffing a defender into the goal ... to get stuck). It's a strategy, and it's valid, but it's also one that challanges ones ideals of what a 'competition' is about.

The one quarl i may have about this post is If those Canucks were playing for the win, we would prbably get something like 18-13. an exciting match taht woudl fill up the seats. but it wouldn't have it's own thread on Chief.

On the other hand, what we saw on friday afternoon was truly exciting. It was the story of the Championships until alliance selection on Saturday morning. As great as QM 119 on Archimedes was, It was not talked about to the extent taht this match was. I was on the dome floor when taht match finished and heard people say "yesterday's match was better".

6v0 or 4v2 may not have been intended by the GDC. but it showed taht FIRST teams really do think outside the box and use unique stratedgies when they need them.

If you want to bring people to the stands (or the floor for that matter). you have to put on a show, case and point 18-13 wouldn't have the sizzle that 29-0 had.

If people haven't figured out that this game isn't all about winning, please try to go undefeated winning matches 3-0 or 4-0... let me know how high up in the standings you are.

EDIT: speaking of Archimedes match 119. I should have that up on my youtube channel tonight.

[Hadar]

a great match indeed!
I was there in person, this was the only match in the curie division, that not one of my team members was willing to miss, we were waiting for this match to come!
when we saw this match on the "match schedule" we marked it as a "must to watch" match almost immediately!