Why change the rules?

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Lish, Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro, Inc..

Posted on 3/28/99 5:54 PM MST




I have read just about all of the point of views
that people have placed on this website, and I just
feel that maybe it is time to throw my two cents in.

No one is more in favor of having more teams in
the qualification matches than I am. BUT I think
that forming three team alliances only cheapens
the title of National champions even more. Adding
more teams an alliance is not a good solution at all.
Why add teams to an alliance? Why not just add more
alliance teams to the elimination rounds. To be
perfectly honest I am not really in favor of whole
alliance thing any way, but what are you really going
to do about it. The worry that I had with the alliance
partner thing was fear of backroom dealings, throwing
matches,...etc. Extending the teams to a three
alliance team only further complicates things.

I feel that adding more teams( by means of more pairs(2)
of alliances)to the elimination matches is a more viable solution.
Think about the powerhouse tri alliances that could be
formed(EX. Assebet, Bomb Squad,and Beatty) all on one team
, it is just not fair. So what if one of the two robots
breaks down in a match. That is why there are two isn't it.
I can not tell you how many time we were paired with a
machine that didn't move in conn., But we had to deal with it.

So, I am just hopeing that they will extend the field in the elimination
matches and not add a third team to an alliance. Well i've now voiced my
opinion ( which is somthing that I usually do not do
,but I guess i just felt strongly about this topic). Sorry for rambling
and boring all of you.

Good Luck at the Nationals!!
Tom
Team #126
"Bad Larry"

[archiver]

Posted by Doug Fischer, Student on team #41, Warriors, from Watchung Hills and Cordis.

Posted on 3/28/99 6:57 PM MST


In Reply to: Why change the rules? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:54 PM MST:



: I agree with you completly. I think that FIRST has excellent intentions
trying to include more teams in the elimination rounds, but instead of
having each top 8 team pick two parteners why dont they take the top
16 seeds and have them each pick a team and make the bracket larger. This
will be good becasue not only will it allow for more teams to participate
in the elimination rounds but becasue the alliances will be fairer and
more evenly matched.

: I have read just about all of the point of views
: that people have placed on this website, and I just
: feel that maybe it is time to throw my two cents in.

: No one is more in favor of having more teams in
: the qualification matches than I am. BUT I think
: that forming three team alliances only cheapens
: the title of National champions even more. Adding
: more teams an alliance is not a good solution at all.
: Why add teams to an alliance? Why not just add more
: alliance teams to the elimination rounds. To be
: perfectly honest I am not really in favor of whole
: alliance thing any way, but what are you really going
: to do about it. The worry that I had with the alliance
: partner thing was fear of backroom dealings, throwing
: matches,...etc. Extending the teams to a three
: alliance team only further complicates things.

: I feel that adding more teams( by means of more pairs(2)
: of alliances)to the elimination matches is a more viable solution.
: Think about the powerhouse tri alliances that could be
: formed(EX. Assebet, Bomb Squad,and Beatty) all on one team
: , it is just not fair. So what if one of the two robots
: breaks down in a match. That is why there are two isn't it.
: I can not tell you how many time we were paired with a
: machine that didn't move in conn., But we had to deal with it.

: So, I am just hopeing that they will extend the field in the elimination
: matches and not add a third team to an alliance. Well i've now voiced my
: opinion ( which is somthing that I usually do not do
: ,but I guess i just felt strongly about this topic). Sorry for rambling
: and boring all of you.

: Good Luck at the Nationals!!
: Tom
: Team #126
: "Bad Larry"

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Leslie, Other on team #157, The Aztechs, from Assabet Valley RTHS and Simplex / EMC / Intel Massachusetts / Ascend .

Posted on 3/28/99 7:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Why change the rules? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:54 PM MST:



(((THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT REPRESENT TEAM 157 IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM)))
This is a great point! Although I am in favor of the jump to alliances
because it teaches how to work with someone you may or may not want to
work with. HOWEVER the change to have a tri-chapion is absurd. Personally
I think that the way it is now is fine, if your ally breakes down OH-WELL
we all had to deal with it in the qualifiying matches now didn't we? Tom
made another god point if you want more teams in the final 8 why don't we
up it to a final 12 alliances??? I hope that majority of the teams at the
great lakes regional DO NOT speak for ALL the teams competing in the 1999
FIRST Competition!!! I think the FIRST owes it to all the teams to
contact them asap and get the VOTE from ALL teams....


JAY

GO AZTECS

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 3/28/99 10:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why change the rules? posted by Jason Leslie on 3/28/99 7:13 PM MST:




i agree with both you guys totally.. the competition is fine as is, robot breakdowns and sticking with the same alliance through it all is part of the challenge, deal with it..

and to team 157 (i can't this to tom, cause i;m on his team).. i'd like to say you guys had a great robot and i was very impressed.. best of luck at the nationals..

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 3/29/99 8:18 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why change the rules? posted by colleen on 3/28/99 10:00 PM MST:




I have a hard time seeing much of a down side to the 3-team alliance rule change.

I've heard complaints that it will allow a team that didn't contribute in the elimination rounds to "unfairly" be crowned as a champion. So What? Who does this hurt? Even if the third alliance partner never plays a single match they were good enough to be picked by a top 8 seed. Besides, being part of a top 8 alliance is a fantastic boost for that teams school, corporation and community. Saying they don't deserve it is just sour grapes; taking the trophy away from them doesn't help your team any.

I've also heard that it would result in "super alliances" by letting teams pick the two best teams that aren't in the top 8. Again, so what? Isn't that the name of the game? Wouldn't it be exciting to see the three best teams play together? And if they are the three best teams what's wrong with all three winning the championship?

Anyway, I think rigging this will be EXTREMELY difficult at the nationals with only four qualifying matches. It would be way too risky to purposely do poorly so you're available for another team. If that other team has even one bad qualifying round your scheme is down the drain. In any case, I truly don't believe you could pick three teams that would make an unbeatable alliance; there are just too many good teams and good strategy can prevail over good robots.

There's been a lot of worries about how teams could take advantage of the system and for the most part none of it has come to pass. FIRST is not going to pick the top 16 teams rather than the top 8 because they don't feel they have time for the extra matches. The three team alliance adds another interesting strategy element to the game, it saves time by allowing broken robots to sit out, it gets more teams into the elimination rounds, and it spreads the glory. Like I said, I don't see a down side.

Jeff Burch

[archiver]

Posted by Thomas A. Frank, Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 3/30/99 9:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why NOT change the rules? posted by Jeff Burch on 3/29/99 8:18 AM MST:



Regarding Jeff's comments.

I am personally inclined to agree with him, I don't see the three team coalition as
being a bad thing. Somewhat bizarre that FIRST should make such a change in the middle
of things...then again, nothing is bizarre for FIRST.

I would suggest, however, that the order in which the top 8 pick their partners is somewhat
unfair. Personally (and this does not represent the position of my team, as I haven't asked),
it seems to me that the #8 seed should have first choice of partner, to maximize the likelyhood
that the final matches will be more even, and hence more exciting (not that they haven't been
exciting, mind you, but a little more excitement never hurt anyone :-)).

Just a thought.

Tom

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Lish, Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro, Inc..

Posted on 3/30/99 11:35 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why NOT change the rules? posted by Thomas A. Frank on 3/30/99 9:58 AM MST:



Tom,

I don't think that it really matters if the #8 seed picks last or not.

I know the alliance that we played in the finals in Conn. was the the number 8 seed

and there partner (Buzz,Enrico Fermi & WPI). So there really is no need

for the number 8 seed to pick first. Just my thoughts.

Tom

[archiver]

Posted by Jon, Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 3/30/99 4:04 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why NOT change the rules? posted by Tom Lish on 3/30/99 11:35 AM MST:



: Tom,

: I don't think that it really matters if the #8 seed picks last or not.

: I know the alliance that we played in the finals in Conn. was the the number 8 seed

: and there partner (Buzz,Enrico Fermi & WPI). So there really is no need

: for the number 8 seed to pick first. Just my thoughts.
:
: Tom

The only thing the 1st seed is guaranteed in this game is the right to pick first... No longer does a higher rank put you further up the chain for the 8th seed has just as far a distance to fight as the 1st...

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/30/99 2:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Why NOT change the rules? posted by Thomas A. Frank on 3/30/99 9:58 AM MST:



>>>I would suggest, however, that the order in which the top 8 pick their partners is somewhat
unfair. Personally (and this does not represent the position of my team, as I haven't asked),
it seems to me that the #8 seed should have first choice of partner, to maximize the likelyhood
that the final matches will be more even, and hence more exciting (not that they haven't been
exciting, mind you, but a little more excitement never hurt anyone :-)).

[archiver]

Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp..

Posted on 4/5/99 3:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Why change the rules? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:54 PM MST:



I think that the one thing that we are forgetting is that the purpose is 2 speed up the matches as well as add more teams to the finals. If the purpose was just to add more teams, then your way would be the best. However FIRST is trying to speed things up. The reason why the new system will speed things up is that now they're taking away the time outs.

With the new system, FIRST achieves both more teams and quicker finals (at least they will be no slower).

-- Peter