So long as the rules continue to be written that throwing a match will not increase my ranking I agree. Wouldn’t want to retroactively make certain decisions made over a decade ago “Not GP”
For those to young to remember or just don’t know back before we had RP as the way of determining ranking FIRST would experiment with different ideas. So back in 2010 the way of determining your ranking was simple:
9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized
score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of seeding points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
9.3.7 Seeding Score
The total number of seeding points (Match Seeding Points plus Coopertition Bonuses) earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their seeding score.
So a certain undefeated team at Champs that year, who happened to be good at math realized it was in their alliances best interest to play 6v0 thus losing the match but guaranteeing them a much better ranking.
To be clear this decision was smart, and perfectly within the rules and I wish I had thought of it.
This is a tough part of FTC judging, and it’s something that FIRST has worked to add clarification to in recent years, I think to good effect. Appendix F: Award Definitions in Game Manual Part 1 goes into detail, but taking an outreach event for example, these are the guidelines for classifying a team’s involvement in an outreach event:
Event Support Definitions:
Ran (a FIRST LEGO League / FIRST Tech Challenge / FIRST Robotics Competition Team) - A Team has Run
an event if they have met all the following requirements:
- Team members are involved in the majority of the planning of the event.
- Team members are involved in the majority of the on-site event execution or have arranged for and are
supervising the volunteers to handle the majority of the on-site event execution.
Running an event essentially means that this event would not be possible without the efforts and actions of
the given Team. The Team in question must be responsible for the majority of the work that goes into the
Team are encouraged to provide documentation (for example, a letter from organizing body/program delivery
partner that the event was Run for) supporting the fact that they did indeed Run the event. All provided
documentation may be made available for judges during the second interview as an additional resource item.
Examples (but not limited to) of Running an event:
● Team A acts as the majority of the planning committee for a FIRST LEGO League event, and Team
members recruit and train the event volunteers.
70 | FIRST® Tech Challenge Game Manual Part 1 – Traditional Events
Revision 1: 7/19/2022
Hosted (a FIRST LEGO League / FIRST Tech Challenge / FIRST Robotics Competition Team) - A Team has
Hosted an event if they have met one of the following requirements:
- The event takes place at a Team facility.
- The event takes place at a facility arranged for by the Team.
Hosting an event occurs when a Team opens one of their own facilities or arranges for a facility to allow for an event to occur. Often Teams will Run and Host the same event, but these terms do not necessarily have to be
Supported (FIRST LEGO League / FIRST Tech Challenge / FIRST Robotics Competition Team) - A Team
has Supported an event if they have met any of the following requirements:
- Multiple Team members are involved in some part of the planning of the event.
- Multiple Team members are involved in the on-site or online event execution for the entirety of the event (for example, Team members have volunteered for the entirety event)
Teams Support events by helping with the planning or execution of the event. This is less encompassing than
Running an event.
(but not limited to) of Supporting an event:
• Having multiple Team members volunteer at the entirety of an event.
• Having a few mentors serve on a large planning committee for a FIRST Tech Challenge regional event.
Examples (but not limited to) that do not qualify as Supporting an event:
• Having 1 Team member volunteer at an event.
• Helping tear down the field at the end of an event.
• Having 1 mentor serve on a large planning committee for a FIRST Tech Challenge regional event.
They have also added similar definitions for Starting/Mentoring/Assisting a team, and publishing resources. These guidelines help ask questions to teams in sister organizations like "Which of your teams Hosted this event? Called out by “who was in charge of organizing the venue? How about volunteers?”
As an alum and prior mentor of two multi-team organizations (both following the Varsity/JV style of program) There tended to be a lot of encouraged competition between the teams by the time you have a competition robot, but a lot of sharing of prototyping and information-gathering resources. This I think tends to do a good job of discouraging throwing or similar problematic tendencies. And of the allegations of throwing matches or sandbagging that I know of/were big in the FTC community, they are overwhelmingly not between sister teams.
There were several other teams who realized 6v0 with that unique robot was a better deal than trying to win.