Not to take anything away from your 301pts or the win… but, where is the defense?
The only time a blue robot approached a red robot was to get a run away ball. And, they moved out of the way when the red robot backed up from the inbounder.
This is a totally different game than what is being played everywhere else.
I love offense, but that looked like an exhibition…not the final match of a regional.
My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I think these good teams will struggle at Champs when they realize how tough defense is in other areas of the world. I also don’t understand how teams can just sit there when they don’t have the ball and do nothing.
Impressive score! I watched this on the live webcast actually. However after driving through a moderately defensive regional, this seems to be the only time ever that I’ve seen as little defense as that. I think one blue robot may have gently nudged one red robot one time during all of teleop. It looks almost coordinated. Can I ask why teams chose to spend most of the match idle rather than defending? It just seems totally bizarre to me.
Any reason why there was almost zero defense in this match? Was that just the alliances’ strategies or were the referrers calling match extremely tight before this? Were teams scared to play defense?
Congratulations on the win.
Finals 1 was more of how the regionals was. To sum Finals 2 up very quickly, Steve Sanghi, a big supporter of FIRST announced that if both alliance in a match score at least 200 points, he would sponsor every team with 500 dollars towards next season. Blue alliance actually approached us with the no defense plan and us the red alliance agreed because we were confident we could out score them with no defense on both sides. Why the blue alliance decided to do this I’ll let them explain if they wish. Here is finals 1 btw and is similar to how finals 2 probably would have been played:
Igniting controversy in 3… 2… 1…
It’s interesting to see people’s response to my silly idea. Notice that the outcome of the match was most likely not affected…will we ever know for sure?
does it matter?
It is a game, after all.
From what I know there was a sponsor Steve Sanghi who agreed to pay for the entry fee of teams for next year’s regional if they were in a match and both alliances scored over 200 points. So there was a pact made in the finals between the alliances to not play defense so that they could get the sponsorship, that is why there was little to no defense played.
Previous match 1 match in finals with defense 225 to 101
after this both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180
I cannot honestly believe anyone would agree to this. That really lessens the win to me. How do you tell this year’s seniors that “hey, we arent going to try to win for a chance at maybe getting some of next years’ entry fee.”
What was there to lose? for either side?
The regional…
How?
Hmmm, let the other side score as much as they want without trying to stop them…let’s think about how that might lose someone a regional championship.
Not trying to say I agree with the Blue alliance strategy but they had plenty of high scoring matches with defense being played on them that outscored some of our alliance’s matches. If the first plan didn’t work very great (finals 1), all out scoring may have actually given them a better chance at outscoring us. Unfortunately, they had some problems running their cycles in finals 2.
It was a choice and both alliances seemed to have made it. If you were completely confident in your alliances ability to completely outscore your opponent’s…would you do it? Apparently the alliance that lost clearly decided they would take that gamble. Would we have done it, probably not. Doesn’t matter.
Does it lessen the win? No, they scored more, they deserved the win. Does it lessen the prestige of the high score? Absolutely.
I never want to bash sponsors, because they make FIRST possible for so many people. However, I sincerely disagree with this being an incentive for teams to change their strategy. This may not be against a rule in the manual, but a little bit of my pride in FRC died when I read about it. Here’s to hoping against it becoming a trend.
But it could still change the strategy. If one alliance thought they could win by using 2 bots and scoring 180 pts with 1 defender but the incentive offered meant they had to try 3 bots to get 200+ with no defending, well then that 3rd bot could be out of position and then lose them the regional for not doing something they were picked to do. I dont mean the 3rd bot specifically would lose it for them but the new way of using them could.