Posted by Chris. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 3/16/2000 6:31 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: Two Different Games posted by Greg Mills on 3/15/2000 1:50 PM MST:
: :
: The reality is that reputation is very important. That reputation was earned for a reason. The robot is only a part of the alliance partner selection. Does that team have what it takes to make it through a tough bracket? A ready pit crew with available spares, a series of charged batteries, a robust enough design to handle many back to back rounds, an unflappable driving and coaching team, etc? Are they willing to do what the alliance captain wants? Did they have a scouting infrastructure to help with the next pick or to help with strategy?
: If I am lucky enough to be in the position of picking - I know some teams that will get high consideration just because I know what they are capable of.
I agree with everything above. However, when I say reputation, I was referring to reputation gained from previous years. Another thing is that I really did exagerate a bit (when I implied reputation is everything).
Anyway, to keep people from getting mad at me, this is what I meant:
Teams that did well in the past and have good reputations get more looks from the other teams. When a lot of teams get to the competitions (I know I’m guilty of this), they get the practice sheet and highlight teams like Chief Delphi, Baxter Bomb Squad, Beatty, etc. to be sure to see what they’ve come up with this year. I know that these teams also typically experience higher traffic at their pits to see what they’re doing this time around.
Hardly anyone picks a team simply because they won the championship last year. BUT, if Team A and Team B are practically identical, and the alliance captain is very familiar with A and not B, they will pick A (and be justified). My point is that when a team has a reputation, the picking teams are typically much more familiar with these teams and are much more likely to pick them based on familiarity (familiarity gained from watching them practice, visiting them in the pits, etc.).
This is, of course, a generalization and not every team operates this way (so save your ‘I disagree’'s because I’m sure you exist). But I know this from experience. You would not believe how many teams we had to beg to see us play or to come to our pits to see us up close. We were told many times by teams that they didn’t know what our team was like. We asked them to come watch us play and they usually didn’t. One team we actually pestered long enough that they came to see us just to get us off of their back (they were happy they watched us afterward). (How many people did the HOT Team have to pester to see them play or practice - I’ll bet none.)
The point is this: No one picks a team just because of reputation from previous years. But these teams do get more looks from other teams and get more of a benefit of the doubt from other teams. I’m not saying that it’s wrong or unjustified. I’m just saying that it exists. Rookie teams and teams with no reputations have to work about 25% harder to get picked than these other teams. It’s just human nature.
(For everyone who wasn’t at the GLR, our team did get picked and we made it to the semi-finals. I’m not here to complain. I’m just trying to point out a potential flaw with the alliance system. A flaw that might potentially explain why the Baker team didn’t get picked. Along these same lines, we were undefeated at Nationals last year and didn’t get picked. We used that experience to make us stronger by putting together a pretty strong marketing effort this year. If you guys see us in your pits every five minutes this year, you now know why. With this in mind, I’ll see everyone at the next competition. 
)