CoOpertition or Ranking Bridge?

I have been thinking about this since talking with others. I know what FIRST calls it but is that what it really is? I would like to hear other opinion and discussion. Please ponder the question before jumping in with an answer. You may start to question as I have. :confused:

Look at the rankings at you local regional. At Los Angeles the average Coopertition points for the top 8 teams was 7.5. The overall average was 3.6.

If you have the ability to reliably balance you can get some BPs. If you are on an alliance with other good bridge robots you’re going to rack up a lot of extra QS points, and a much higher ranking as a result.

I thought about it as a ranking bridge before we played for the first time this weekend. Then I remember pointing to the other drive team smiling and telling the other alliance’s driver that he did some great driving after the match, if that’s not coopertition and the spirit of FIRST then I don’t know what is.

I’m not sure I totally agree. A team can accumulate a lot of coopertition points even without reliance on their partners balancing the alliance bridge. In 9 matches our alliances only earned 20 bridge points total. What is needed is a cushion of HP/TP’s to feel safe enough to spend up to half the teleop period on the coop bridge hoping that the pre-arranged balance comes to fruition (and that the other teams follow through with the agreement to at least try to balance with you…which happened all but one match for us as I recall).

Sorry for being a little vague/brief. What I meant was that if a win was in doubt teams might go for bridge points, but if shooting had secured the win then coop usually took place. Most alliances that got several coops also had good win/loss records.

In my eyes it is the control removal bridge, chaos inducer bridge, or collusion bonus bridge. In previous years it was clear that winning a match was the only way to guarantee that you’d have the best odds at seeding high. In nearly all cases winning or losing a match is something that your team and, as an extension, the robot you have built have a good degree of control over. Additionally, a win is often rewarded to the team who’s robots plays the game with the greatest ability.

In the case of this year, a team who is unable to field a robot for the entirety of a regional has the potential to seed above all other participating teams. While the odds of this are slim, this scenario demonstrates what is in my opinion an underlying flaw to the ranking system. To continue, teams have also lost the ability to control half of the available ranking points possible during each match. So, in another scenario, an undefeated robot whose opposing alliance was always unable, or unwilling, to cooperate, could likely seed below teams with multiple losses whose opposition had been more able or agreeing.

I understand that the widely accepted message of first is that the robot is just a vehicle, and the competition is merely a celebration of all that has been accomplished. But this is, after all, a robot competition. And as such it is my belief that this competition should celebrate those who play the game with the greatest skill. The CoOpertition bridge often affords an opportunity to an opposing team to snub someone based on personal vendetta, peer pressure, or whatever else.

Teams remember when someone snubs them and word gets around. If you agree to balance then go against that, you become less desirable to the other teams which means you are effectively hurting yourself twice (not getting the points and getting a negative consideration by possible alliance teams).

While I agree with you, this does not exclude “snubbing” from occurring. It has happened to such degree that the GDC released a statement regarding behavior of this sort.

Coopertition Bridge.

Last year the minibot poles were what I would call “ranking” as coopertition really had nothing to do with it…