Tournament Structure Ideas...

[Joe Johnson]

There were things I liked about this year's tournament structure and things I did not like.

What do you think of the following concept:

1. Go back to 2 on 2 (2 team alliances, even in Elimination Rounds)
2. No seeding match on Sat. morning
3. Draft on Friday Night select Nteams/2 alliances
4. Automatic Draft Process (teams have 30 minutes to enter their pick order of teams below them and which teams they will accept or reject a pick from for teams above them, computer does the pairing) but Pairs are anounced in serial fashion to keep the drama of the draft process
5. If Nteams = odd, last alliance is made up of Unpaired Team and highest seed team eliminated from the tournament when Unpaired Team plays its match in Round 1 (the last match of Round 1)
6. Nteam/2 alliances have a "standard" elimination tournament (best 2 of 3 advance)
7. Highest Seeded Team eliminated in Round N-1 available for Breakdown Backup in Round N
8. No Breakdown Backup in Round 1

What I like:

• Kind of goes back to Friday seeding, Saturday Elimination Tourney format from the old days of FIRST (then U.S. FIRST).
• Everyone plays matches that matter on Saturday
• Everyone has a chance to win on Saturday (Cinderella Stories allowed)
• Everyone gets drafted -- nobody goes home saying I didn't get drafted!
• 2 on 2 - less confunding of data, less confusing to watch
• Everyone on an Alliance plays every match in the Elimination Rounds

What I don't like:

• fewer winners (2 Champions not 3)
• first round will have a lot of blowouts (like the NCAA ???)
• GP needed to keep from abusing the Breakdown Backup rule

Feel free to comment and/or propose your own trounament format that fixes some things and breaks others.

Joe J.

[Don Wright]

Oops...never mind... I understand now...

[ah27]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

There were things I liked about this year's tournament structure and things I did not like.

What do you think of the following concept:[list=1][*]No seeding match on Sat. morning[*]Automatic Draft Process (teams have 30 minutes to enter their pick order of teams below them and which teams they will accept or reject a pick from for teams above them, computer does the pairing) but Pairs are anounced in serial fashion to keep the drama of the draft process

I dont think we should eliminate seeding matches on Saturday morning, because that would mean fewer qualifying matches, making the final rankings less "true". With more matches played, the teams that are reliant on their partners to carry them through start to fall in rankings.

[Chris Hibner]

Joe,

I really like this idea. I would change one thing:

Allow the teams until Saturday morning before they have to turn in their picks. Give a deadline of 8 a.m. or something similar. The computer can then churn out the pairings and they can be announced at 8:15. Alliances then have until 9 a.m. to strategize. Picks can be made on bubble sheets and scanned into the computer for speed.

The reason for waiting until Saturday morning is simple: teams need the time to sort through the scouting data and make a list. If they really want to do it on Friday, I think there needs to be 2 to 3 hours from when matches end until when the lists need to be turned in.

[Mike Martus]

In addition I would suggest........

Start matches on Thursday afternoon with a single practice on Thursday morning. This would allow 2 seeding matches this day.

Eliminate inspections at the championship, just have weight and size. Afterall the robots were shipped directly from the last event, unless an engineer hid in the crate how would it have been changed from the last inspection.

Add another 2 fields that all teams (divisions) would play some matches on with their division. With the size of 85 teams in a division you need 10 or more seeding matches to really sort out the best.

Eliminate the QP using the losing teams score.... did anyone actually score for the other team. Unless the game structure is different this did not work.

I like the ideas that Joe has presented. 3 on 3 will give you more matches and through put but at an expense. The long trip to the fields, uphill both ways, snowing and raining.

[Rob]

I know it would require an insane amount of humanpower, and create even more traffic, but I really think that 8 divisions of 40 are the way to go. Each team would get 9-10 qualifying matches, would have only 40 other teams to scout, and a greater percentage of teams would get to participate in elims.

The real problems are with having twice the people to run all of these fields. I also agree that there needs to be some way of giving teams more time to sort out their scouting lists. Teams work hard for 2+ days to develop lists and rate teams, only to be called out in a rush before matches are even done. One of the worst feelings in FIRST is sending a captain out to the field with a list, not even knowing who the top 8 will be yet.

I think this is a good thread, because FIRST does tend to listen to serious concerns of teams. Lets keep this one on topic and serious and hopefully something constructive will come out of it.

Rob Zeuge

[kevinw]

This is a great idea. The breakdown backup rule could be a serious problem, though - any time it's used, people will question the legitimacy.

Also, think how much better off you'd be to be the last seeded team in an odd field than the second to last seeded team.

Perhaps it should be the lowest seeded team in the tournament to be eliminated that pairs up with the lowest seeded undrafted team in order to be more fair and to encourage high qualification rankings.

What happens if a team is rejected by all teams below it? Perhaps you should only be allowed to indicate teams you want to pick that are below you, and not who you would accept an invitation to play with. Any teams that are unpicked at the end are automatically paired based on qualification ranking, regardless of preference?

I do agree that some time would be necessary to properly consult scouting data and prepare a draft list.

This year, there were two fields that were not used for FRC play during division matches. If the championship were expanded to 8 divisions, then everyone would have more qualification matches. Likewise, if a regional had more than X teams, then they would have two divisions within the regional (more than Y teams, then they would have four divisions.. etc.)

[Billfred]

By and large, I like the idea as you have it here. And I agree, the tournament this year was like we're playing Oregon Trail with the pace kicked up to grueling. (Let's see if the kiddies get THAT reference!)

But suppose FIRST kept 3v3, but increased match time to 3:00. Doing so would decrease the number of matches, as you'd have two matches for every six minutes of match time, as opposed to the current three-ish. You also eliminate that extra field reset, introduction, etc., which would ideally mean more time with the field in action, which keeps the audience primed.

Thoughts?

[dbSparx]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

There were things I liked about this year's tournament structure and things I did not like.

What do you think of the following concept:

1. Go back to 2 on 2 (2 team alliances, even in Elimination Rounds)
2. No seeding match on Sat. morning
3. Draft on Friday Night select Nteams/2 alliances
4. Automatic Draft Process (teams have 30 minutes to enter their pick order of teams below them and which teams they will accept or reject a pick from for teams above them, computer does the pairing) but Pairs are anounced in serial fashion to keep the drama of the draft process
5. If Nteams = odd, last alliance is made up of Unpaired Team and highest seed team eliminated from the tournament when Unpaired Team plays its match in Round 1 (the last match of Round 1)
6. Nteam/2 alliances have a "standard" elimination tournament (best 2 of 3 advance)
7. Highest Seeded Team eliminated in Round N-1 available for Breakdown Backup in Round N
8. No Breakdown Backup in Round 1

What I like:

• Kind of goes back to Friday seeding, Saturday Elimination Tourney format from the old days of FIRST (then U.S. FIRST).
• Everyone plays matches that matter on Saturday
• Everyone has a chance to win on Saturday (Cinderella Stories allowed)
• Everyone gets drafted -- nobody goes home saying I didn't get drafted!
• 2 on 2 - less confunding of data, less confusing to watch
• Everyone on an Alliance plays every match in the Elimination Rounds

What I don't like:

• fewer winners (2 Champions not 3)
• first round will have a lot of blowouts (like the NCAA ???)
• GP needed to keep from abusing the Breakdown Backup rule

Feel free to comment and/or propose your own trounament format that fixes some things and breaks others.

Joe J.

Go back to 2 on 2 (2 team alliances, even in Elimination Rounds) - I actually like 3 on 3.
No seeding match on Sat. morning - Our team has had some real comeback stories beginning late Friday and continuing on Saturday. We won the Buckeye a couple of years ago when we were able to come out of nowhere and get in position to be selected. I could agree with a Friday night draft process, though, using the math you described (only N/6 teams (3 per alliance)). For smaller regionals, everyone would have a spot in the tourneys. Not a bad thing, of course, but the first matches, as you said, could be blowouts.
Draft on Friday Night select Nteams/2 alliances - Would make the draft a LOT tougher. We would have to radically improve our draft board process. We usually use Friday evening to review game film and get our primary sort down.
Automatic Draft Process (teams have 30 minutes to enter their pick order of teams below them and which teams they will accept or reject a pick from for teams above them, computer does the pairing) but Pairs are announced in serial fashion to keep the drama of the draft process - Adds a lot of complexity and I am not sure what it buys you in return. I like the current selection process.

If Nteams = odd, last alliance is made up of Unpaired Team and highest seed team eliminated from the tournament when Unpaired Team plays its match in Round 1 (the last match of Round 1) - What if you limited the number of teams going to the tournaments to the largest number that is less than the number of teams in attendance that can be divided by either 4 or 6, depending on how many teams are on an alliance.

I'm OK with the rest.

[Kevin Sevcik]

It's definitely an intriguing idea, though I think rookies would be swamped by the massive scouting necessary to make informed picks. Also, I think refusing picks is an issue. As pointed out earlier, a team could be refused all the way down the list of teams. If you do allow refusals, do they work the same as they do now where you can no longer be picked? Are you allowed one refusal and then must accept the next draft? There's various issues of collusion/unfairness to be solved here. Maybe a largish off-season competition could try this format out?

Second point. Assuming a nice round (in binary) number of 32 alliances, you'd start with 16 best of 3 rounds and move up. You'd end up with atleast 62 matches needed to determine a winner, at most 93(!) assuming no ties. Plus later rounds would be delayed until previous level of rounds was finished. Going back to the old style '98 double elimination tourney would be a well-defined 62-63 matches that could actually be scheduled, and would probably be more workable. Plus I always liked the idea of a team losing in the first round and then working their way all the way up the losers bracket.

[Lil' Lavery]

I like 3 on 3 first off, but that is besides the point.
The automatic draft process is what I have the biggest trouble with. It doesnt let you have alternate plans depending on what teams get picked above you.
For example:
Your the #2 seed.
If the #1 team picks team A, they will be an all offensive alliance, and youll need a defensive bot to contend with them, so youd pick team B.
If the #1 team picks B, youll need more offense, but team A plays the same type of offense as you (ex: 2004 and herding, you need a capper), so youll need to pick team C.
But with an automatic system, you wouldnt be able to differentiate between the two.
The other issue with having the minimum number of teams on an alliance is repairs. This year's system was an interesting one, especially considering you couldnt switch back once they were fixed. But if everyone was in an alliance, you wouldnt even have that option, making it so if a robot was broken, youd would probably be screwed. And if it is a "malicious" breaking of a robot by another robot, it would be quite unfair. Because team A busted your alliance partner in the QFs, you didnt win the semis (they got DQed in the QFs for busting the bot), and therefore are eliminated from the tourney. But if you could swap for another bot, you might win the semis and then the entire tourney.