Am I the only one who LOVED the seeding system this year?

[Chris is me]

(after week 1)

So I've been thinking since week 5 about this new seeding system that no one seems to like all that much. I think I break from popular opinion when I say that this system does an awesome job of what qualification systems are supposed to do: rank teams. The system made the highest scoring robots seed 1st, regardless of schedule. At least, on paper it did. Strong schedules where a team won every match, weak schedules against multiple powerhouses, and mixes between the two were all good things, and teams that earned it could become top 8 robots with a little ingenuity.

If people throw out their preconceived notions of "winning" matches, and are more willing to consider the tradeoffs of playing matches 6v0 or 4v2, then the system is really great. Unfortunately, far too many teams decided that these strategies were "unfair", "cheating", etc. which really ruined the experience for those who understood the ranking system and wanted to take the challenge. The way the system forced you to honestly evaluate your chances of winning a match while calculating the gain in seeding 6v0 versus 3v3 was in my mind very smart, and I really didn't like how this year there was so much negativity against outside the box thinking.

I especially liked how losing several matches on Friday did not count your team out of the top 8 like last year. A lot more teams had the potential to put on a really great show for a match or two and rocket back up to the Top 8.

I think if the GDC spells out at the beginning of the year in big letters "PLAYING TO WIN MAY NOT BE THE BEST MOVE" to generally quell the downers and teams that decide because you're playing to win the regional and not the match you should go on their DNP list. Because other than that, I loved how this seeding system worked to put the top at the top.

Does anyone else agree? Am I missing something?

[jblay]

Personally I loved the seeding system from the beginning. The only situation I was afraid of was the 6v0 but the GDC quickly took care of that. This system puts the best scorers at the top of the rankings almost always. In the past, so many times I found that the best teams were rarely ranked first and lots of teams that weren't great were ranked first based on luck of schedule.

[dag0620]

Chris,

I am with you 100% when I say I love the seeding system also. The systems makes teams think creatively when playing the games, and makes the, have strategy instead of just win, win, wind no matter what it takes (as long as it is in the spirit of FIRST).

As you know one of the big factors of my team being a QuarterFinalist at CT is because of the seeding system. We came out of that even 5-6-1, which wouldn't get us into the Elims without being picked.

I hope that as we enter the Off-Season and we start competing at some of very favorite Invitationals, that they decided to stick with the seeding system, instead of W-L-T.

[Alpha Beta]

I loved the seeding system too once we added the 5 point bonus. Hopefully the bonus for winning will stay proportional to the number of points expected in a match. In Lunacy a 25 point bonus for winning might have been necessary.

[IKE]

There is still a mathematical and motivational disconnect with the seeding system.

Your seeding score must be based on your alliances score in order to have you motivated to do well.

Case in point: Archimedes. Going into the match Team 33 had the #1 seeding score (the eventual event #2) going against team #254 the eventual event #1. The only team that could contest this position lost a match before us. We could have done a 6v0 or even sandbagged the match in order to ensure we kept the lead (anything less than us scoring 13 pts. and loosing). This match had a great set of teams and had the potential of being spectacular. We knew this, and our opponents knew this. We made a conscious decision that rather than throw the match, we would go for it. then end result was a spectacular 20 to 18 defeat that catapulted 254 into the lead. This set the new seeding record of 61 points. For us, a 22 to 0 defeat would have been much better with us blocking shots on our goal likely playing against the entire other alliance and one of our partners that had a vested interest in our opponents doing well. That's what I don't like about this seeding system.


In order to get the same benefits, they could have done:

Winners Seeding= Winners points + 2* loosers points + C
Losers Seeding= 2*loosers points.

This would have had all the benefits and not given the incentive to do a 6v0.

Do we regret Qualifier Match 119? Heck no. We had spent two days getting one of our alliance partners ready for the Battle Royal, and it was arguably the greatest match of the year. 20 to 18 with 4 bots off the floor and the last 2 points scored in the final 10 seconds! It was spectacular. Great job 254, 330, and 45 and thanks to our partners 233, and 1111 for helping put on a great show!

And that is one of the reasons I am not in love with this seeding system.

[DarkFlame145]

More or less this new system shows which teams are the best. But like the old WLT system an team can still get lucky and get really good alliance partners and even up in the top 8, when really they are not a top 8 team. It's not perfect, but I think it's better then the old one.

[Tom Ore]

The seeding system does seem to help the best teams rise to the top, however, there still seems to be a quite a bit of luck involved. In the 16 - 20 match, team 67 won and moved into 2nd place (which they really deserved.) If our alliance had won (with the luck of a few balls bouncing in our favor,) we might have had a much higher seed than maybe we deserved, and team 67 would have been left much lower.

I like the concept of the seeding system but it seems a bit too sensitive to the match outcomes.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by IKE

There is still a mathematical and motivational disconnect with the seeding system.

Your seeding score must be based on your alliances score in order to have you motivated to do well.

Case in point: Archimedes. Going into the match Team 33 had the #1 seeding score (the eventual event #2) going against team #254 the eventual event #1. The only team that could contest this position lost a match before us. We could have done a 6v0 or even sandbagged the match in order to ensure we kept the lead (anything less than us scoring 13 pts. and loosing). This match had a great set of teams and had the potential of being spectacular. We knew this, and our opponents knew this. We made a conscious decision that rather than throw the match, we would go for it. then end result was a spectacular 20 to 18 defeat that catapulted 254 into the lead. This set the new seeding record of 61 points. For us, a 22 to 0 defeat would have been much better with us blocking shots on our goal likely playing against the entire other alliance and one of our partners that had a vested interest in our opponents doing well. That's what I don't like about this seeding system.


In order to get the same benefits, they could have done:

Winners Seeding= Winners points + 2* loosers points + C
Losers Seeding= 2*loosers points.

This would have had all the benefits and not given the incentive to do a 6v0.

Do we regret Qualifier Match 119? Heck no. We had spent two days getting one of our alliance partners ready for the Battle Royal, and it was arguably the greatest match of the year. 20 to 18 with 4 bots off the floor and the last 2 points scored in the final 10 seconds! It was spectacular. Great job 254, 330, and 45 and thanks to our partners 233, and 1111 for helping put on a great show!

And that is one of the reasons I am not in love with this seeding system.

I agree. Winning big matches puts too much of a skew on the rankings because the LOSING alliance doesn't really get enough credit for the fight they put up. Losing a match 20-2 is much easier to do than losing a match 20-19, and yet, they're worth the same to the LOSING alliance. The WINNING alliance gets far more benefit from the close match. Why shouldn't the LOSING alliance get a proportional benefit to the closeness of the match?

[IKE]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Why shouldn't the LOSING alliance get a proportional benefit to the closeness of the match?

Hence Winners = W+2L
and losers = 2L

For the example I gave, this switches it from a 61 vs. 20 seeding score to a 56: 36. It still pays dividends to win, but isn't quite as bad to loose a close high scoring one.

Also if you win 20:2 then winners get 24, losers get 4. instead of 24 & 20 respectively.

As I tell the kids, DO THE MATH!

[kgzak]

I liked the seeding system this year but I was not in love with it. Losing teams should get more credit for losing. I really don't like 6v0. At MSC one of the other teams wanted to go 6v0 and I (along with most of my team) refused. If the losing team is rewarded more for their fight. The match our alliance wanted to go 6v0 was against 469 201 and 2612. Had we not gotten all the dogma penalties it would have been a fairly close match and if we had been rewarded for fighting we may have been ranked higher and that might have affected what we did with our robot (we made a lot of changes at MSC)

Sorry that is very poorly put together but I am tired, If you need me to clarify please ask.

[LWakefield]

I didn't really like the seeding points this year. It helped us a MSC, but it screwed us over at Atlanta. Luck has a lot more to do with where you seed. It depends on who you go against.

[Starke]

To echo what has been said, I like the seeing point system. It is a good way to keep the best teams somewhere near the top.

THE PROBLEM with the seeding system is that no other sport does it that way. To the outside public, it is seen as very confusing when compared to a WLT record. I had a tougher time describing the POINT SYSTEM to outsiders this year then the GAME ITSELF!

[efoote868]

Rather than editing my post, I'd like to clarify:

20-16 means more points than 33-0.
Also, whats more degrading: A shut-out of 15-0, or your opponents scoring for you for a score of 10-5? (Not sure if that happened this year, but it was a common occurrence in 2006).


I also dislike the fact that this scoring system makes it better to win by penalties than to out-right win.

[Racer26]

What if you did something like:

Win: W+2L+C
Lose: (1/(W-L) * L)+ L + W
Ties: 3T

This way:

A 20-2 match gives 29 SS to the winner, 22.1 SS to the loser, and a 20-18 match gives 61 SS to the winner, and 47 SS to the loser.

Yes, a match won or lost by 1 point results in the C element being the only difference. I think this is a good thing.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

What if you did something like:

Win: W+2L+C
Lose: (1/(W-L) * L)+ L + W

This way:

A 20-2 match gives 29 SS to the winner, 22.1 SS to the loser, and a 20-18 match gives 61 SS to the winner, and 47 SS to the loser.

A 18 point difference from the winner and the loser gets a 7 point SS difference? I agree with most of the earlier ideas that winner's points should not get included in the loser's SS.

If there's a 20-2 match, I say the alliance that only scored 2 deserves only 4 seeding points even if it means a 25 SS difference, since it isn't fair for a horrible alliance to get a big boost in seeding just because they got caught against 3 powerhouses.

With a 20-18 game, it was a narrow defeat, so I'm fine with the loser getting a nice big boost in seeding (36 loser points vs. 61 winner points. Makes much more sense than 18 vs. 61

Alternatively, what if the score difference subtracted from seeding points, such as this formula (winner remains same as current)
loser: (2*L)-(Difference/2) (nothing below zero)