A comment about alliance selection in off season events

Originally Posted by artK

I also find it wrong that teams are picking their second robots, not only on an inclusiveness level (it is the offseason), but from a strategic perspective. Why would you put all your eggs in one basket like that?!?! Unless you're in the final picks and your second (or tenth) robot is actually the best robot for your alliance (not likely true considering the nature of cycles this year), you should spread yourself throughout the bracket.
Worst case is that you play yourself, but who knows when (Could be anywhere, even the finals)?

I don't see a problem with playing with your own team.

[artK]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

I don't see a problem with playing with your own team.

IIRC, 971 was the alliance captain, they had the final say .

[MARS_James]

In my opinion (and it may be an unpopular one) while an off season event is more fun and laid back then a traditional regional, it is still a competition that we pay for, there is still a tournament structure with Awards, and teams who are crowned champion/winner. If an event wants to run a no seconds bots or no second bots in eliminations or (even worse) no second bots till all "real" bots are picked let the teams decide if they want to pay to go to said event.

I really dislike this thread as at Panther Prowl after all alliances were picked we did have 5 teams who were left out because second bots made it to eliminations: 1649, 2152, 2916, 3502, and 4592. None of these teams seemed to have an issue with not being picked for eliminations because of second bots (atleast from who I have talked to) heck 2152's second robot was actually picked and they weren't.

What it comes down to is plain and simple: To paraphrase a man much smarter then me the F in FIRST does not stand for Fair. We are playing a sport just like any other and sometimes the pendulum swings the other way. Do I wish there was a way for every team to compete at every level while still maintaining a quality of competition? Yes, is that feasible? No.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

In my opinion (and it may be an unpopular one) while an off season event is more fun and laid back then a traditional regional, it is still a competition that we pay for, there is still a tournament structure with Awards, and teams who are crowned champion/winner. If an event wants to run a no seconds bots or no second bots in eliminations or (even worse) no second bots till all "real" bots are picked let the teams decide if they want to pay to go to said event.

I really dislike this thread as at Panther Prowl after all alliances were picked we did have 5 teams who were left out because second bots made it to eliminations: 1649, 2152, 2916, 3502, and 4592. None of these teams seemed to have an issue with not being picked for eliminations because of second bots (atleast from who I have talked to) heck 2152's second robot was actually picked and they weren't.

What it comes down to is plain and simple: To paraphrase a man much smarter then me the F in FIRST does not stand for Fair. We are playing a sport just like any other and sometimes the pendulum swings the other way. Do I wish there was a way for every team to compete at every level while still maintaining a quality of competition? Yes, is that feasible? No.

I see the off season events as a different type of event than the Regionals and World Championships. And I see FIRST and FRC as MUCH different than the NFL, NCAA or even the National Federation Of State High School Associations. To put is simply we are NOT playing a sport like any other. The primary purpose of FIRST is to build enthusiasm for STEM and related educational activities. The primary (or even secondary) purpose is NOT to promote competition or entertainment. Focusing solely on competition rules and winning competitions can go to far and detract from the primary purpose of FIRST. First and foremost, we MUST always encourage as many students (and mentors) as possible to participate in an activity that directly leads to improved STEM education which in turn will lead to improve economic outcomes not only for the involved students but also for the national and global economy. If you're not on board with that concept yet, I suggest digging much deeper into the principles of FIRST and why Dean Kammen started this program.

(And note that I am not anti-sport. I won league individual and team championships and set a school record at a NCAA Division 1 school as well as competing in several national championships.)

That said, that means that we need to consider during the off season how might we increases the involvement and enthusiasm of potential new participants. Many students and even teams are new to FIRST in the fall before the Kickoff. Why not change the rules or at least the informal agreements about alliance selections as one way?

I like the rule of not being able to draft your 2nd robot unless none other are available. As for not drafting an alliance captain, there are two solutions. The first is have a coaches meeting beforehand and ask if the coaches agree that the competition is informal enough that they might agree to this. This year, I'm pretty sure that they would have said no at Chezy Champs and yest at Capital City where we competed. I have no problem with these different outcomes. A second approach is to have a rule that if a team was in the Top 8 going into the last match and they lose, then they can't be drafted in the first round, or alternatively, by the top 4 alliances. That will eliminate any real benefits from trying to game the rankings.

I think we need to keep in mind the spirit of what we're trying to achieve in FRC. We're not trying to build the De Le Salle football machine. We're trying to educate the best engineers, scientists and other professionals and technical workers that we can.

[MARS_James]

I have had a very long week so sorry for the late response

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I see the off season events as a different type of event than the Regionals and World Championships.

We agree here like I said in my original message offseason are more laid back and fun so we are on the same page.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And I see FIRST and FRC as MUCH different than the NFL, NCAA or even the National Federation Of State High School Associations. To put is simply we are NOT playing a sport like any other.

I still agree with you though I am unsure what part of my message brought this on.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

The primary purpose of FIRST is to build enthusiasm for STEM and related educational activities. The primary (or even secondary) purpose is NOT to promote competition or entertainment. Focusing solely on competition rules and winning competitions can go to far and detract from the primary purpose of FIRST. First and foremost, we MUST always encourage as many students (and mentors) as possible to participate in an activity that directly leads to improved STEM education which in turn will lead to improve economic outcomes not only for the involved students but also for the national and global economy.

Once again no disagreement, still curious as to why I am being paraphrased the credo of an organization that, according to our delphi profiles, I have been involved with more then twice as long as you have.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

If you're not on board with that concept yet, I suggest digging much deeper into the principles of FIRST and why Dean Kamen started this program.

Fixed how to spell Dean's last name for you. Trust me I get this concept, and I have been awarded for it multiple times by FIRST, I apologize if some people see my response thus far, or further on as personal attacks or belittlement but I do not like to be demeaned or patronized especially relating to what a group that has shaped my entire adult life means.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

That said, that means that we need to consider during the off season how might we increases the involvement and enthusiasm of potential new participants. Many students and even teams are new to FIRST in the fall before the Kickoff. Why not change the rules or at least the informal agreements about alliance selections as one way?

I think here is where I will stop agreeing with your statements and begin directly disagreeing. Offseason events are NOT official events. Offseasons are independently run events that vary wildly from each other. IRI changed (or fixed) major rules about this game, Panther Prowl added a end game, TRI had a very different way of doing alliance selections, you will never get ALL offseasons to agree to any rule unless explicitly stated in the manual, and even then an event can change the rule. I will come back to this later as I get further into my response but I need to tackle a few more parts before coming back.

You bring up that we need to think of ways to increase involvement of future participants: At our offseasons we had a majority rookie drive team for our second robot, and many other Florida teams also ran with new students, to show them how exciting not only watching but actually competing with a robot can be. One could actually argue that your idea of inclusion has a bigger implication on the regular season, so following your idea of getting more teams to compete, MORT and MORT Beta, as well as Goodrich and More Martians, should gracefully bow out every year of competing in eliminations as they are quite literally taking up a shot for someone other team to attend Championship.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I like the rule of not being able to draft your 2nd robot unless none other are available

Now we get into a logistical/logical problem my team this year built triplets alongside 1251, two competition robots and a practice robot. We took the practice robot to offseason events, should both our teams be unable to select that practice robot or only 179 because we paid for it to be there?

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

A second approach is to have a rule that if a team was in the Top 8 going into the last match and they lose, then they can't be drafted in the first round, or alternatively, by the top 4 alliances. That will eliminate any real benefits from trying to game the rankings.

What if they legitimately lose? Should a team be punished for being outplayed, breaking down, or just legitimately not syncing with a randomly selected alliance? Or are we now working under the assumption that every team who is in the top 8 near the end of a competition is legitimately one of the top 8 robots at the competition, because anyone who has seen these events play out know that that is not true.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I think we need to keep in mind the spirit of what we're trying to achieve in FRC. We're not trying to build the De Le Salle football machine. We're trying to educate the best engineers, scientists and other professionals and technical workers that we can.

And here is where I come back to my point above, one of the first things I learned when working on a real world engineering project in a real company is that engineering is a business, now that seems like common sense but sometimes people forget that. If you are going to make a product you are constantly competing to make it better, cheaper, prettier, lighter, and/or cooler then the guy(or company) next to you. Why do I bring this up? because as I said all these off seasons are different and run by different people, if they want to change the rules let teams decide if they want to pay to be there, I even said as much in my original comment. For example if any rules were applied to a second robot to make it different from a normal robot, I wouldn't bring it, I don't want the new students to get confused as to what will happen come the real season, and I don't want to deal with explaining to my students that despite their hard work they have to be segregated and applied different rules to them.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Individual teams can't make the decision at these events on how they select alliances that will best promote the goals of FIRST. It's the prerogative of FIRST, regional directors and event organizers who work with FIRST. It's as though you're saying that each NFL team should get to choose what rules they want to play by.

Are you kidding me? Are you honestly suggesting that teams when making alliances should think about what promotes the goals of FIRST? There is a very good reason as to why their is 2 awards independent of the tournament that veteran teams can receive for the promoting the goals of FIRST and they are announced AFTER the winners, because they are more important. And yes believe it or not each NFL team does get to choose at least what conditions they play by, or have you not noticed that we have stadiums and domes?

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I won't get into the debate since I think pretty much all points have already been stated multiple times but I don't think FIRST should be setting the standards for off seasons. Those are individually managed by offseason coordinators and therefore they should be able to play with whatever rules they want. NFL may make rules for football, but that doesn't mean me and my friends are going to play by exactly those rules.

+1

[New Lightning]

Okay, looking back over this thread I feel like kind of an idiot, I don't know what I was thinking. Its true there will only be 32 teams, and that no matter what system you use there will still be 32 teams. However, I still feel that a system, just for the off season, where the alliance captains can't pick from each other creates better competition in the elim rounds. In any kind of event there will he the people that get to a top 8 ranked team, that probably shouldn't have been there. But that is still part of the game adapting to who can be on your alliance, and how you use those robots. And yes #8 teams can go out and when championships, but they still had to go out and earn that by playing and using what teams they had available to them. By using this system lower ranked teams have the opportunity to play with higher ranked teams, which allows them to get experience and perhaps grow as a team from the experience, maybe make a friend that normally wouldn't have. There will always be pros and cons to any system, I happen to like the CTTD system for off season, doesn't mean everyone else shares my same opinion.

[XaulZan11]

I'm not sure it's other teams place to tell other teams who they cannot or shouldn't pick. Similar to the adults on drive team and mentor involvement, it should be up to those individual teams to make decisions for their team based on their goals and values.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm not sure it's other teams place to tell other teams who they cannot or shouldn't pick. Similar to the adults on drive team and mentor involvement, it should be up to those individual teams to make decisions for their team based on their goals and values.

The captains still have full control over who the pick as long as its not another alliance captain. At least for CTTD. And I agree it should be up to the individual team members on who to pick, but by forcing the best teams to pick from outside themselves it makes the entire elimination process more competitive and more entertaining for the spectators and the teams involved. And the goal of FIRST is to inspire students to get involved in STEM related carrier fields and activities and to have fun. And when the completion is more competitive, the entire experience is more fun.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I'm not sure it's other teams place to tell other teams who they cannot or shouldn't pick. Similar to the adults on drive team and mentor involvement, it should be up to those individual teams to make decisions for their team based on their goals and values.

It may not be a team's place to TELL another team what to do, but that does not mean that another team might express an opinion and try to persuade other teams what to do. We don't operate in isolation, and we may have a different opinion about the larger goal of the organization.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Okay, looking back over this thread I feel like kind of an idiot, I don't know what I was thinking. Its true there will only be 32 teams, and that no matter what system you use there will still be 32 teams.

Don't worry, you're not an idiot. My intuition also told me that more teams would play in elims under that system. However, I try not to listen to intuition if it doesn't lead me to a well reasoned argument.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by artK

IIRC, 971 was the alliance captain, they had the final say .

1323 was the alliance captain that year, but I'm sure they checked with 971's scouting data. Madtown wasn't very competitive in 2012 like it is every other year.

[BrendanB]

It really depends on the event organizers and how they want to run it. If an event decides to allow additional robots either to fill the event to 24 or make the playing field larger it is their decision. If a team brings more than one robot it is their decision to play there and if a team doesn't bring another robot it is their decision to play there.

Depending on the access to off-season events for teams it should be considered when making the decision. So if its the one event of the year that teams can get to I would favor no additional bots until all single teams have been selected. The nice option is to just cap the event at 24 or say third bots can't play in elims if you want to keep filling it if third bots are needed to get to 24 then its the first ones needed to fill 24.

It also does come down to the teams who are competing with a second robot if they want to select their own robot but we are all adults so that is their decision to make.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

1323 was the alliance captain that year, but I'm sure they checked with 971's scouting data. Madtown wasn't very competitive in 2012 like it is every other year.

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

2012 was 1323's best robot.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

2012 was 1323's best robot.

Oops! I didn't mean their robot, their robot was fantastic, I meant the Throwdown overall.

[Qbot2640]

I've read this whole thread, and may have missed someone else suggesting this - but wouldn't a better way to include everyone have just been to use six alliances of three, rather than four of four. Give alliance one and two a quarterfinal bye, then proceed like a full elimination.

I agree with the many who don't have a problem with choosing your own B-team, and I also agree with the many who point out the problems with a no-captains policy. Keep it free - works best that way.