Let's make a deal ! ?

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by mike aubry, Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST

Okay, so who would believe that 4, yes 4 teams turned down Wild Stag, the #2 seed because each of them had made deals with other lower ranked teams! With that in mind, how many think that the alliances will be set up even before we get to Florida? And if you want to consider something else - How many of you would consider being partnered with Chief Delphi - now that you know what we bring to the party? Just a strawman poll - no obligations, no deals at this time, just want to test the waters - and maybe avoid the embarassment of being turned down (3 teams declined our offer as well) I know what our policy is regarding back room deals beforehand - but what about the rest of you? Let’s hear what you all think!

2

Posted by jake, Engineer on team #177, Bobocats, from VT- virginia tech (team 177) and International Fule Cells.

Posted on 3/27/99 10:59 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s make a deal ! ? posted by mike aubry on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST:

To be honest, I haven’t liked this alliance deal from the start. I like the idea of teamwork and sportsmanship, but lets face it; everyone is out to win. With now three team alliances I think there will be even more back door deals. Say that I was the number 1 seed in Florida. I could go up to the #9 and #10 seed (whomever the two best teams not in the top 8 are) and provide them with the opportunity to create an all-star, powerhouse team. If somebody did this, and I’m sure they’ll try, it really stacks the deck against everybody else. Joe J and others talked about pre-alliances at the start, and I think fears are starting to come true. I don’t think this can be reconciled without sort of formal ruling against it, but even if there were, I’m sure it would happen anyway. I don’t know if FIRST intended for this to happen or not. I don’t know if people like this concept or not, but I’m certainly not in favor of it.

Any Comments?

-Jake

3

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/28/99 12:33 AM MST

In Reply to: The is precisely the problem… posted by jake on 3/27/99 10:59 PM MST:

What if, at nationals only, you couldn’t decline an offer from a choosing team? I’m completely in favor of it because:

It makes it much harder to wheel 'n deal to make the super (unfair) alliance

Also, it puts the top 8 te in a position to beam more successful, rather than putting the sub-8 teams in that position (if they feel a lower seed may be more compatible).

An unpopular opinion I suppose, but I like it for nationals. They could claim it teaches us how to handle “hostile take-overs.” :-Dan

4

Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp…

Posted on 3/28/99 12:39 PM MST

In Reply to: What if there were NO rejections? posted by Dan on 3/28/99 12:33 AM MST:

: What if, at nationals only, you couldn’t decline an offer from a choosing team? I’m completely in favor of it because:

: It makes it much harder to wheel 'n deal to make the super (unfair) alliance

: Also, it puts the top 8 te in a position to beam more successful, rather than putting the sub-8 teams in that position (if they feel a lower seed may be more compatible).

: An unpopular opinion I suppose, but I like it for nationals. They could claim it teaches us how to handle “hostile take-overs.” :-Dan

I like it! This would prevent all of the nasty deals that people have cooked up so far. There is no other good way of policing what many consider to be cheating!!

As long as FIRST is in the mood for changing rules, this is a good one!
-Peter

5

Posted by Jon, Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 3/28/99 1:47 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: What if there were NO rejections? posted by Peter VanWylen on 3/28/99 12:39 PM MST:

: : What if, at nationals only, you couldn’t decline an offer from a choosing team? I’m completely in favor of it because:

: : It makes it much harder to wheel 'n deal to make the super (unfair) alliance

: : Also, it puts the top 8 te in a position to beam more successful, rather than putting the sub-8 teams in that position (if they feel a lower seed may be more compatible).

: : An unpopular opinion I suppose, but I like it for nationals. They could claim it teaches us how to handle “hostile take-overs.” :-Dan

: I like it! This would prevent all of the nasty deals that people have cooked up so far. There is no other good way of policing what many consider to be cheating!!

: As long as FIRST is in the mood for changing rules, this is a good one!
: -Peter

I like the No-Rejections idea but what if a team has found an issue that they cannot fix in time for the eliminations? (in the post-qualifiers “lunch” break)
i think that if a team were to reject an offer then they should be taking themselves out of the running, therefore the drafter can pick another team and a under-the-table deal with a lower seed is prevented.
just another $0.02,
Jonathan

6

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc…

Posted on 3/28/99 9:17 AM MST

In Reply to: The is precisely the problem… posted by jake on 3/27/99 10:59 PM MST:

  • this is slightly long, so bear with me, please… *

The first seed gets first choice of allies anyway, so nobody else would be in the position to get rejected(for lack of a better word) before 1st seed got their picks.

Also, there are two very different types of alliance “deals”, one that I don’t see as a big deal, and the one that we should all fear…

if a team, after realizing that they are going to be in the top eight, goes to another team and says “i think we would make a good alliance”, then I don’t see the harm in that one…it’s just a way to make sure that everybody knows what is going to be going on later…also, it prevents an alliance who may have had a broken mechanism in the last round being picked based on their performance earlier in the competition…i don’t see any problems with that type of agreement…

On the other hand, if a couple teams, between january 9 and now, have been working side by side, with the agreement that if one of them gets into the final rounds, that the other will be chosen as the ally, then i have a problem with that…all of the other teams have put in just as much work on their machines, and there may actually be a better, unplanned, complementary machine that doesn’t get the fair chance it deserves…

So, to make a long story short, if during the course of a competition, a team sees a strong possible ally, then I don’t have a problem with them making a deal…however, the alliances formed before practice rounds should be the ones that we’re worried about…

Nate

: With now three team alliances I think there will be even more back door deals. Say that I was the number 1 seed in Florida. I could go up to the #9 and #10 seed (whomever the two best teams not in the top 8 are) and provide them with the opportunity to create an all-star, powerhouse team.

7

Posted by mike aubry, Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/28/99 9:38 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: The is precisely the problem… posted by Nate Smith on 3/28/99 9:17 AM MST:

Okay, so now that we are almost to Nationals - What about teams that are already aligned with others just going through the motions during the qualifying rounds? If a deal had already been made, why try to improve themselves, they are already “in”! Heaven forbid - why even try, and what could FIRST do about it anyway - They decided to let teams decline when asked - This could get really ugly, I personally hope that everyone plays it straight, during the qualifying rounds, but with only 4 of them - Whats the incentive for those already aligned?

8

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 3/28/99 11:25 AM MST

In Reply to: Playing fair? posted by mike aubry on 3/28/99 9:38 AM MST:

For a super Alliance to take place, one of the teams in it has to make the top 8, plus there are 24 very good teams so I expect there to be 8 Super alliances and not just one. It’s gonna be great to see what happens. If Beatty Hammond does make the top 8 I expect them to pick team 27 and why shouldn’t they. They helped them win two regional championships, i’d do the same thing if I was in that situation. but for some strange reason Beatty hammond doesn’t make the top 8 then how can the super alliance be formed. I would also like to add a point about why I don’t like the 3 team alliance rule. Let’s say team 445(it’s a fake number but just work with me)has a very inferior robot and the only reason why they made the top 8 is because they got teamed up with Delphi one round and Baxter in the other to score 540 each time. Being in the top 8, Team 454 knows that they don’t really have a legitimate shot at winning the competition. They go and talk to teams 27 and 71 and ask them to be their alliance partners and that teams 27 and 71 would play all the rounds in the elimination rounds without team 454 doing anything. So team 454 gets a free ride having an inferior robot but still gets a prize if Beatty and team 27 make the finals. It’s gonna be like “a day in the life of politics” with all the deals that are gonna be made.

Mike Kulibaba Team 88 TJ²

9

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/28/99 11:31 AM MST

In Reply to: Playing fair? posted by mike aubry on 3/28/99 9:38 AM MST:

>>>>>>>Okay, so now that we are almost to Nationals - What about teams that are
>>>>>>>already aligned with others just going through the motions during the
>>>>>>>qualifying rounds? If a deal had already been made, why try to improve
>>>>>>>themselves, they are already “in”! Heaven forbid - why even try, and
>>>>>>>what could FIRST do about it anyway -

I don’t think any team will “just go through the motions” in such a huge tournament as nationals. No team is guarenteed a spot in the top 8, and even those who feel they are a “lock” to be picked will at least need to exhibit their capabilities. :-Dan

10

Posted by mike aubry, Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 3/28/99 4:21 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Playing fair? posted by Dan on 3/28/99 11:31 AM MST:

> I don’t think any team will “just go through the motions” in such a huge tournament as nationals. No team is guarenteed a spot in the top 8, and even those who feel they are a “lock” to be picked will at least need to exhibit their capabilities. :-Dan

Dan - those teams that make the deal before getting to Florida do so with teams that they already know about - thats the point I’m making here. I know that no one is guarenteed a spot in the top “16”, yes I believe there will be 16 picking 2 other teams, that makes a total of 48! Great idea to expand the participation. Teams that have been paying attention already know who they would like to pair up with if given the chance, and when 3 teams decide ahead of time, then it only takes one of then to make it into the top 16, the other 2 no matter how good they are may have no other choice than to play dead in order to secure a spot below the 16th seed! We shall see what happens in 4 short weeks!

11

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 3/28/99 11:16 AM MST

In Reply to: Let’s make a deal ! ? posted by mike aubry on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST:

:
: Okay, so who would believe that 4, yes 4 teams turned down Wild Stag, the #2 seed because each of them had made deals with other lower ranked teams! With that in mind, how many think that the alliances will be set up even before we get to Florida? And if you want to consider something else - How many of you would consider being partnered with Chief Delphi - now that you know what we bring to the party? Just a strawman poll - no obligations, no deals at this time, just want to test the waters - and maybe avoid the embarassment of being turned down (3 teams declined our offer as well) I know what our policy is regarding back room deals beforehand - but what about the rest of you? Let’s hear what you all think!

Is there anyone else who doesn’t see this situation as being a problem – as long as the
pre-determined arrangements aren’t causing teams to throw matches or violate the rules
(e.g., intentionally destroying another robot in a qualifying round knowing they’ll get
picked for the elimination rounds even if they are DQed).

Personally, I’d rather have a partner who wants to be on my team than someone who is
forced to be.

- Jerry
12

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/28/99 12:28 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s make a deal ! ? posted by mike aubry on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST:

Ok, maybe I’m just a bit slow here, but I don’t see a problem. I see no cases where a team would be so uncompetitive to choose a predetermined alliance partner when they could pick someone better. Every one of the top 8 seeds should choose the partner that best compliments their particular robot. In the same respect, a lower than top 8 team who has a secure place in the finals (due to skill or reputation or whatever leads a team to being picked), would decline a highly seeded robot only if a lower seeded robot would make a better alliance partner. Not simply because of some pre-arranged “deal”. The reason FIRST allows the top seeds to pick first is because they earned it. But perhaps after merely 4 QMs the fourth seed is the best robot. Well, that allows someone to decline seed number one. It is a great rule.

I also saw a message talking about how someone might get a “free ride” so to speak. Well, why would a great team like Beatty decide to team with a freeloader? Shouldn’t they go with the best of the best? Besides, FIRST has done a great job at making strategy VERY key this year; A team with three great robots and a flexible strategy will most likely win over a team of two great robots that doesn’t have much choice on how they play their 2 minutes. I just think this is a lot of talk that will never be backed by actions. Maybe I’m just slow but I don’t see the problem at all.

FIRST made us an AWESOME game. Why don’t we stop being so pessimistic?? They deserve appreciation, not deprecation!

-Daniel

13

Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp…

Posted on 3/28/99 12:49 PM MST

In Reply to: WHAT problem? posted by Daniel on 3/28/99 12:28 PM MST:

: Ok, maybe I’m just a bit slow here, but I don’t see a problem. I see no cases where a team would be so uncompetitive to choose a predetermined alliance partner when they could pick someone better. Every one of the top 8 seeds should choose the partner that best compliments their particular robot. In the same respect, a lower than top 8 team who has a secure place in the finals (due to skill or reputation or whatever leads a team to being picked), would decline a highly seeded robot only if a lower seeded robot would make a better alliance partner. Not simply because of some pre-arranged “deal”. The reason FIRST allows the top seeds to pick first is because they earned it. But perhaps after merely 4 QMs the fourth seed is the best robot. Well, that allows someone to decline seed number one. It is a great rule.

: I also saw a message talking about how someone might get a “free ride” so to speak. Well, why would a great team like Beatty decide to team with a freeloader? Shouldn’t they go with the best of the best? Besides, FIRST has done a great job at making strategy VERY key this year; A team with three great robots and a flexible strategy will most likely win over a team of two great robots that doesn’t have much choice on how they play their 2 minutes. I just think this is a lot of talk that will never be backed by actions. Maybe I’m just slow but I don’t see the problem at all.

: FIRST made us an AWESOME game. Why don’t we stop being so pessimistic?? They deserve appreciation, not deprecation!

: -Daniel

This doesn’t only involve choosing a bad team because of pre-made alliances. It could also involve un-pre-made allinaces, that are determined through talks during the .5 hour break after Qual. matches.
See messages for an explaination:
message 670 — http://www.chiefdelphi.com/wwwboard/messages/670.html
message 655 — http://www.chiefdelphi.com/wwwboard/messages/655.html
also see followups to such messages

14

Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 3/28/99 4:45 PM MST

In Reply to: WHAT problem? posted by Daniel on 3/28/99 12:28 PM MST:

I know of at least one predetermined alliance from Great Lakes. Let’s call them teams A and B. Team A went so far as
to not want to be top 8, because they knew that if both themselves and team B were in top 8, they
could not be allied together. now, team A had the opportunity to (excuse my language) screw their
alliance partner over in late elimination rounds. luckily, they did display gracious
professionalism. but this alliance thing can be destructive.
: Ok, maybe I’m just a bit slow here, but I don’t see a problem. I see no cases where a team would be so uncompetitive to choose a predetermined alliance partner when they could pick someone better. Every one of the top 8 seeds should choose the partner that best compliments their particular robot.

15

Posted by Peter VanWylen, Student on team #107, Team ROBOTICS, from Holland Christian High School and Metal Flow Corp…

Posted on 3/28/99 12:35 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s make a deal ! ? posted by mike aubry on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST:

:And if you want to consider something else - How many of you would consider being partnered with Chief Delphi - now that you know what we bring to the party? Just a strawman poll - no obligations, no deals at this time, just want to test the waters - and maybe avoid the embarassment of being turned down (3 teams declined our offer as well) I know what our policy is regarding back room deals beforehand - but what about the rest of you? Let’s hear what you all think!

No beforehand deals, but we would happily jump to accept an invitaion from Chief Delphi!

16

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/28/99 4:50 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s make a deal ! ? posted by mike aubry on 3/27/99 8:08 PM MST:

: At At the New England Competition, I did not observe any ‘‘prealliances’’.
Any team we spoke to was asked if they were still ‘‘available’’ if asked
and no one said they were committed to some other team. Did I miss something?
: Okay, so who would believe that 4, yes 4 teams turned down Wild Stag, the #2 seed because each of them had made deals with other lower ranked teams! With that in mind, how many think that the alliances will be set up even before we get to Florida? And if you want to consider something else - How many of you would consider being partnered with Chief Delphi - now that you know what we bring to the party? Just a strawman poll - no obligations, no deals at this time, just want to test the waters - and maybe avoid the embarassment of being turned down (3 teams declined our offer as well) I know what our policy is regarding back room deals beforehand - but what about the rest of you? Let’s hear what you all think!

17