Rookie Teams in Elims

[Marc S.]

973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).

When the time came to pick a 3rd we went with a team that looked most attractive by the numbers and willingness to be a team player. If 1836 or 3512 had not been available, we probably would have picked a rookie.

[aidyl]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).

When the time came to pick a 3rd we went with a team that looked most attractive by the numbers and willingness to be a team player. If 1836 or 3512 had not been available, we probably would have picked a rookie.

Hi,
Thank you for cheering for us (4019). We loved being part of FIRST and we were in awe with every rookie and veteran team. We are humbled for even being noticed or even considered to be part of an alliance. Maybe next year we would pair up.
Way to go all FRC teams!!!
Much Love,
Aidyl Team 4019 Mechanical Paradise

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
WildStang makes no decision based on team number. Our statisticians look at performance on the field (not win/loss), consistent behavior, robot functions all the time, etc. If you look back at our history we have often won regionals with one or even two rookies at our side. Some of those teams have gone on to be real powerhouse teams like 1625 and 1816 to name just a few. In 2009 we and 67 picked a team that was 66th in the standings because our scouters believed they had what our alliance needed and met the criteria above. Happily they were right and 971 performed admirably. (Thank you again!)

[Chris Vivo]

It has been my experience that the teams at the LA regional pick alliance partners based on performance. We were picked for direct eliminations our rookie year as was at least one other rookie team. I know that when we do our scouting, we do not worry about whether a team is a rookie or not, all we worry about is on field performance and what we find out when we visit them in the pits. This year, it just turned out that non-rookie teams got selected over rookie teams. We are a veteran team, but we did not get all of the bugs worked out until the end of the day on Friday, so I knew we had little chance of being selected, even though we did well Saturday morning.

[Hawiian Cadder]

When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.

[Clark Pappas]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.

Well, if nothing else, we build an unbreakable frame. Twice we tipped on the bridge (That I can recall; once on coo-op with 399 when we got shifted sideways, and once when we over drove with our top heave frame) We still didn't get picked, but this was because we didn't perform well during eliminations with issues ranging from shifting the coach role too much and bad communication, to an unlucky match schedule, to the two alliance having constant breakdowns on or around the bridges. Although I would have liked to think we could have been a decent bridge pick (It's the only thing we really did during the match anyway), we never really got many opportunities to prove it. What we ended up learning at the end of the regional was that we couldn't rely on others to handle balance or coopertition for us, and that we needed to try it ourselves to prove ourselves pickworthy.

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Having been on the other end of being picked, I too questioned whether there was a bias against "young" teams.

Now that we have veteran experience, I can safely state that there is no such bias.

Experienced teams pick their alliance partners based on their scouting data, and how well a given robot will perform within that team's strategy for winning. The picking team wants to maximize their chances of winning, so they pick the "best" team available. The issue is with the definition of "Best".

For 1676 at Rutgers, "Best" meant a nimble defensive bot with smart drivers that knew how to avoid fouls. They also needed to be able to balance well, again driver skill. Our pick of 1370 had these qualities. Check their rank to see if they were in the top 24 or not...

So if a rookie team fit the criteria, it would be picked, If not, it wouldn't. Simple as that.

(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won't work. We use numbers, not friendships.)

We are ranked 18. We thank teams 1676 and 56 for giving us that shot to show what we have. It gave our team a boost and we've been soaring ever since! See you in Philly!!

[Austin2046]

I've wondered about this too, esspecially at champs. I remember in 2007 (our rookie year) our team was 5-2-0 (one of those losses being against 1114) on Curie and I believe we were ranked 11th. Thinking back, I've wondered if we weren't picked because our robot wasnt very attractive... despite being rather effective... or because we were a rookie team... despite having a reliable autonomous... or maybe we didnt fit in with the alliance captain's strategies... or maybe some other reason.

Generally speaking, when i'm looking for alliance partners I usually want to pick robots that can fit in to my predetermined strategies. Usually the first pick is a highly effective scoring robot, which can sometimes be a rookie team... i know at Seattle Cascade this year we were thinking alot about picking 3968 because despite being a rookie they were one of the best scorers on the field. Generally though the best offensive robots are not rookie teams. So then in a second pick the general role is often a defensive robot. Unfortunately most rookie teams don't spend much time thinking about a drive base for defense. I know our rookie year, we had 2 traction wheels, driven by 2 cims, and two omni wheels... it took hardly any effort to push us ...

Anyway, i think while there may be a little bias against rookie teams, the smart teams easily look past that, because they're simply asking themselves, "how do i win? and who will help us most to do that?" If I feel a rookie team best fills one of those roles and would work well with us, I don't hesitate to pick them.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).

Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don't think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don't think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.

This was very, VERY true at LA, and probably why I disagreed with our scout, Marc S, on them being on our list.

We probably had about 45 teams on our list friday night, with 15-45 all being on the "watch list", as it was just too hard to tell from the statistics.

[kaliken]

I am agreeing with the sentiments of Joe and Adam. Our scouts had a good idea on the first 10-15 teams on Friday night. Of those top 10-15 one was a rookie. Afterward to start figuring out the next set of teams we needed to do a lot of searching to find what teams would work best with our robot/alliance formation we wanted. We had a bunch of teams that fell into this group. Finding the right one that fits with our robot, strategy is a tough task for any team.

I will admit our scouting while leaps and bounds better than what it was in years past, has a long way to go. We collected a lot of great data and performance numbers. Putting that data to great use is our next step.

Regardless we make our picks based upon on field performance regardless of ranking (this year with better data) and based upon how the team rounds out our alliance.

[robochick1319]

I think one obstacle in seeing rookies in the elimination rounds is the fact that this is a very difficult year to be a rookie. In past years, even rookies who built what were essentially running bases (a kit base with kit wheels) could put up some serious defense.

In 2008, for example, as long as a robot was running, it could rack up points for making it around the track. But this competition makes defense difficult with the many possibilities for serious penalties. Unless rookies are especially good, they don't always have a way of getting on the ramp or shooting well.

There will always be good rookie teams in the elimination rounds, but rookies should remember that the first year is a building year. Many veteran teams have veteran knowledge and experience to make better robots and better strategy. Rookies shouldn't get discouraged by this but rather strive to build great programs. And like others have said, it isn't about the number but the performance.

[dsmoker]

I worked closely with our scouts this year and last, and can honestly say that team number has had NO impact on our rankings. It's about these things: (1) individual robot performance; (2) reliability; (3) whether the functions that the robot does well are the things we need to compliment our alliance; and (4) whether we think the team is a "team player," ie. will follow the alliance captain's strategy.

For example, this year in CT we were seeded 10th and fairly certain that we would be moving into picking position. We decided that we needed two robots that could reliably score in hybrid, one that was a faster shooter than we were (we were decent, usually getting 3-5 balls in the 3-point basket in teleop but knew we needed someone faster) and a third robot that could play defense and feed balls from the other end of the field. We also wanted both robots to be wide, or at least able to rotate on the ramp, because we were a long robot that could hang off the end of the ramp, and although we never tried a triple balance we did not want to preclude that possibility.

In the end, we were selected by Team Max, 1071, who was the 5th seeded team. At the time we were 8th and could have declined, but we accepted their invitation. When our scouts saw that Apple Pi, team 2067, a fairly prolific scorer and good balancer with a wide configuration, was still available for our second pick, they and the 1071 scouts agreed that they would be a good offensive pick, and Team Max agreed to be our defensive threat.

[Ariful]

Originally Posted by dsmoker

I worked closely with our scouts this year and last, and can honestly say that team number has had NO impact on our rankings. It's about these things: (1) individual robot performance; (2) reliability; (3) whether the functions that the robot does well are the things we need to compliment our alliance; and (4) whether we think the team is a "team player," ie. will follow the alliance captain's strategy.

For example, this year in CT we were seeded 10th and fairly certain that we would be moving into picking position. We decided that we needed two robots that could reliably score in hybrid, one that was a faster shooter than we were (we were decent, usually getting 3-5 balls in the 3-point basket in teleop but knew we needed someone faster) and a third robot that could play defense and feed balls from the other end of the field. We also wanted both robots to be wide, or at least able to rotate on the ramp, because we were a long robot that could hang off the end of the ramp, and although we never tried a triple balance we did not want to preclude that possibility.

In the end, we were selected by Team Max, 1071, who was the 5th seeded team. At the time we were 8th and could have declined, but we accepted their invitation. When our scouts saw that Apple Pi, team 2067, a fairly prolific scorer and good balancer with a wide configuration, was still available for our second pick, they and the 1071 scouts agreed that they would be a good offensive pick, and Team Max agreed to be our defensive threat.

Ah, irony, our robot could go over the middle bridge..and go collect balls...and then shoot them back to our field.....another utilization that would have been possible.. if we were picked

I wonder if if our robot could pull a triple balance though..we only pulled of a 2-way balance...

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Ariful

Ah, irony, our robot could go over the middle bridge..and go collect balls...and then shoot them back to our field.....another utilization that would have been possible.. if we were picked

I wonder if if our robot could pull a triple balance though..we only pulled of a 2-way balance...

Again, were you able to balance in every match? Did you have any issues with your robot at the event? How long did it take you to balance? How consistent were you in auto? Did you ever have any issues not showing up to the field on time, missing matches (due to the robot not working or because you hadn't passed inspection)?

I wasn't at the event and haven't seen any match video so I can't really speak specifically about your robot, but it's really hard for us all here to judge without all the information. Being seeded 11th doesn't really mean anything to me. There are teams that sometimes get carried all the way into the top 8 by getting paired up with good robots every match. I'm not saying this is the case with you because I don't know the facts.

I've also seen you posting in other places about not getting picked. Well, it happens. It's fine to ask for advice on what sorts of things the teams in picking position were looking for. But most of the posts I've seen by you have just been reiterating the point that you really think you should've been picked. You just keep parrotting "We were 11th seed and could double balance." That's fine and dandy, but doesn't really add to the conversation very much and it gets irritating to check back on this thread to see that you're in here again complaining about not being picked.

Am I being a bit harsh? Maybe. But one of the thing that really bothers me about CD is that some people come on here largely to just toot their own horns and highlight their own team.