Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.
Posted on 3/27/99 6:12 PM MST
So, now that it’s over, how did the 3 Team Alliances
in the finals go?
Anybody unhappy with the rule?
How were the alliances chosen? Did the top seeds tend
to choose 2 offensive robots, 2 defensive robots, or
1 of each?
And, of course, the biggest question of all:
Will it solve the problem?
Digging for info,
Tom
Team #275
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 3/28/99 5:21 AM MST
In Reply to: 3 Team Alliances posted by Tom Vanderslice on 3/27/99 6:12 PM MST:
: So, now that it’s over, how did the 3 Team Alliances
: in the finals go?
I thought the three team alliance worked very well. It definitely helped
speed things up. A couple of time outs were called but a few times a
robot was switched due to problems. In fact, one of the top 8 seeds had
a problem with their robot and had to take themselves out of the rest
of the tournament.
: Anybody unhappy with the rule?
A few teams voted against it. I didn’t personally notice anyone unhappy
with it.
: How were the alliances chosen? Did the top seeds tend
: to choose 2 offensive robots, 2 defensive robots, or
: 1 of each?
Most seemed to be picked base on individual needs and what their overall
strategy was going to be. Defense seemed to be pretty big for a lot of
teams. The ability to get on the puck and keep other teams off seemed
to be another attribute that was popular.
: And, of course, the biggest question of all:
: Will it solve the problem?
: Digging for info,
: Tom
: Team #275
Teams still tended to call timeouts instead of changing robots. However,
with the timeout time cut to 2.5 minutes, it is possible that it will
eventually save time. The elimination matches at this regional seemed
to go faster than at Chicago. Although I didn’t actually time anything,
it just seemed faster.
I personally like the rule from a strategy standpoint. I allows a team
pick one alliance partner for one type of strategy and another alliance
partner for a different strategy. The captain can then decide which
alliance partner they want to use (and therefore which strategy)
depending on their opponent alliance.
Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp…
Posted on 3/28/99 12:12 PM MST
In Reply to: 3 Team Alliances posted by Tom Vanderslice on 3/27/99 6:12 PM MST:
I like the rule because it lets more people into the finals, which means more fun. However, there are a few problems with it. It stacks one alliance badly – I will explain shortly.
The way FIRST does it is that first the top 8 seeds pick their first partner. Then they start back at the first team and have them choose a second partner. This doesn’t work, however, because teams can decline an invitation. As it happened in Ypsi, The #1 seed really got to choose its two favorite teams. The #1 seed(team A) talks with another team(team B) and promises B that A will choose them on the second round through. After team A has chosen its first round pick(say with team C), seeds 2-8 choose. Every time a 2-8 seed calls for team B, it declines. Then on the second round thru, team A follows suit and takes team B(who happily accept the invitation).
This all ends up with one very hot alliance (with the #1 seed + the top two other teams that weren’t in the top 8). Even worse, a very very good team could intentionally do bad to stay out of the top 8, just so that it could get chosen in by another team that has already agreed to choose them.
With all these ugly ideas mixed up, we could have (speaking with Ypsi teams in mind) Baxter Bomb Squad go to the top 8. Ahead of time, however it had agreed ahead of time with Beatty and another very very good team, that Beatty and the other team would intentionally stay out of top 8. Then we get one awsome alliance (maybe with the very top 3 teams). Other alliances would have NO CHANCE up against such a stacked team.
SO, first of all, please don’t use the nasty idea I just gave you. Second, maybe we could encourage FIRST to work around this problem. The best work around would be that a team could not decline in the first choosing round and then accept in the second choosing round.
What does everyone else think?
Peter
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 3/28/99 6:29 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: 3 Team Alliances posted by Peter VanWylen on 3/28/99 12:12 PM MST:
Let me start by saying that we have been on both ends of the picker/pickee stick. Both ends are equally tricky to deal with.
This new 3rd team think has really opened up the back room deal arena.
Personally, I hate such back room deals.
Our team has always taken the position that we will accept the first team to call our number.
Second, when picking, we would not ask another team to do what we would not (i.e. reject another offer that would come in before ours), so we did not go around asking teams if they would hold out for us. Further, due to our inexperience at picking and our last second entry into the top 8, we didn’t even have a chance to ask any of our potential partners whether or not they had already made a deal with anyone.
Our team rep went out to the floor with a list of our top 14 picks in order (enough to ensure 2 partners).
While many of the teams on our list were already taken by the time we had our turn, some were not. Sadly, two teams rejected our invitation. In both cases, the teams went in the second round.
I am a reasonable mature/well adjusted person, yet to be honest, I was pretty hurt on both counts.
Oh well, we ended up with two great partners (Thanks GM Powertrain/Pontiac Northern & PICO/Berkley).
Maybe I am just too much of a boyscout, but I really don’t like all the wheeling and dealing that goes on. By the way, we were sitting in 9th place going into our last round, with promises of picks from many very good teams should we not make the final cut. Should we have taken a dive on that last round? We played it straight. We have been called foolish by some for doing so.
OK, Finally, here is my deal breaker idea:
I propose that a team that rejects an invitation in the first draft is not allowed to be picked in the 2nd draft. Further, I propose that the first match of the first round must be played by the picking team and their #1 pick.
Why? Well, I propose that teams ought to pick their top pick in the first draft. As it is, if a team makes a deal with another team, they need not choose them first. In fact, one of the winners of the Great Lakes was team 27, which was the last team that Beatty picked, but their “A” team in terms of which team played most matches.
Under the proposed modification, a team would not risk not picking their best team first because 1) they might be picked by another team in the 1st round and then that team would either have to accept or sit it out. 2) If they were willing to risk this they would then also be force to play at least one match with their first pick.
Feedback?
Joe J.
Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.
Posted on 3/28/99 7:21 PM MST
In Reply to: narrative plus a deal breaker idea posted by Joe Johnson on 3/28/99 6:29 PM MST:
Joe,
I agree completely. Also, I very much admire the fact that your team will accept the first offer & not make deals - it shows a great deal of respect for other teams and a great deal of integrity. I hope all teams are able to follow your example. We had the same policy at our regional and the kids wanted it that way - they didn’t want to turn anyone down or be turned down (we were also in both positions) and I was very proud of them for that stance.
Any potential back room deals only cheapens the entire experience for everyone. I just hope FIRST makes the rule most seem to be advocating - NO REJECTIONS. It seems everyone would agree to it, so I feel FIRST should at least propose it to all the team coaches. If the GREAT LAKES teams got to vote on 3 team alliances, let ALL the national teams get to vote on NO REJECTIONS.
Just a proposal. 
Jason
Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.
Posted on 3/29/99 7:31 AM MST
In Reply to: narrative plus a deal breaker idea posted by Joe Johnson on 3/28/99 6:29 PM MST:
: Joe Johnson Wrote…
: OK, Finally, here is my deal breaker idea:
: I propose that a team that rejects an invitation in the first draft is not allowed to be picked in the 2nd draft. Further, I propose that the first match of the first round must be played by the picking team and their #1 pick.
: Why? Well, I propose that teams ought to pick their top pick in the first draft. As it is, if a team makes a deal with another team, they need not choose them first. In fact, one of the winners of the Great Lakes was team 27, which was the last team that Beatty picked, but their “A” team in terms of which team played most matches.
: Under the proposed modification, a team would not risk not picking their best team first because 1) they might be picked by another team in the 1st round and then that team would either have to accept or sit it out. 2) If they were willing to risk this they would then also be force to play at least one match with their first pick.
I’m for everything but the deal breaker for this reason. A top 8 team will not know what teams it will have to face while it’s deciding who to pick as alliance partners. If they pick two teams that provide them different strategy options, they should be free to choose which option to field once they learn who they’ll be facing.
There could be legitimate reasons for an alliance to field thier “C” team first. In our case in Detroit, the seeded team chose to field the “B” and “C” teams and left themselves out of the first match (an extrememly gutsy move in my oppinion!) because they felt that gave them the best match up against their opponents.
I think the first part of your idea, not allowing teams that decline in the first round to accept a pick in the second round, sufficient to solve the problem without tying the alliances hands when it comes to fielding teams.
Jeff Burch