New Aliance Selection?

It seems that everytime the first seeded team picks another high ranked top-8 team and win with them. It seems unfair to all the teams. Shouldn’t the top ranked 8 teams be required to pick outside and stay as Aliance Captains.

Several years ago, what you propose was indeed a rule. For the last several years, it has been a conscious choice to allow teams to pick within the top 8. Perhaps you might ask one of the GDC members who visits the forum to clarify the exact reasoning behind it.

I would disagree with it being unfair, however. That would imply some entitlement to be chosen by a higher-ranked alliance captain. No such entitlement exists.

If you worked hard for two days to be the number one seed, would you want someone to tell you that you can’t pick one of the seven best teams at the event?
Say you’re second seed, and the first seed came to you and told you that they wanted to be allied with your team in the eliminations. Would you lose matches on purpose to drop in ranking so they can pick you? Is that fair to the teams you’re allied with in the matches you lose on purpose?

You can see where this snowballs and makes for a bad event.

In actual practice, lower seeds do often win. Our team has a very good record in 2006 and 2004, beating higher seeded alliances in elimination matches.

The reverse order of picking the all important third robot has made a difference this year. I think that the alliance that makes the best third pick has an advantage, because an alliance with three good robots can beat an alliance of two great robots and a so-so robot. It is very hard to defend against three robots that can score. The eighth seeded alliance gets to pick their third robot first, so make sure you have done your scouting :slight_smile:

This is a thread i just started discussing the ammount of number 1 seeded teams that have gone on to win the regional. not sure if it is something you had in mind when you asked the question.

I asked Woodie about this at UTC. His thoughts are that it would be unfair to deny the top teams their #1 picks. If a team is the #1 seed, they deserve to form the best alliance they can, same with #2-#8. It would be unfair to the top 8 teams to force them to pick teams outside of the top 8.

It’s an interesting debate with strong arguments from both sides.

The reverse-order for second round seems to be leveling the playing field a bit though.

I would actually like to see the top 8 teams each pick teams that are ranked 9 and lower. It would show which top seed is truely better than the rest. :ahh: I think that happened at the nj regional which is probably why the elimination matches turned out good :wink:

The reason that it Happened in NJ was that the top 8 teams thought that there would be better complementing teams to theirs other than the ones in the top 8. This come from good scouting. The top 8 teams may not be the best robots at the event. A lot depends on the pairings during qualifying. This year the algorithm was not very good and some teams played against other teams 4 or 5 times out of 12.

First, let me begin by saying - I understand why some think that the top 8 should be able to select anyone they want as a reward for being ranked in the top eight.
I’m not convinced that “random?” alliance pairing being used for the seeding matches is the true test of determing the top 8 robots though. And, I’m not sure that in large regionals with limited number of opportunities (matches), the top 8 can bubble up to the top without even them getting a little lucky in alliance pairings or opponent alliance pairing for that matter.
If the selection process is meant to allow a balance of teams in the elimination tourney, my answer to this question is different from if the selection process is meant to provide the higher seeds with a reward based on the seeding match results.
If the idea is to reward them - then why reverse the order the second time through (I know the answer is obvious - to balance the alliance strengths - but why take away the reward for being a higher seed if that is the rationale for allowing them to pick whomever thay want in the first place?)
If the idea is to try and balance the strength, then don’t let them pick amoung the top 8 and don’t reverse the order the second time around.
I think this becomes topic as a new thread every year the alliance process is changed. It seems like it will always be one of the things that cannot make everyone happy.
My wife suggested using a blind draw for the 3rd team, so even the teams that may never ever get a chance to play in the elims has at least an outside chance. She doesn’t read the CD forums, so I call tell you that I didn’t think it was such a good idea - but, I didn’t tell her that.

Look at 469 and 217 in detroit

in purdue last weekend, the number 1 seed picked the number 2 seed and lost in the semifinals, so it’s not completely all true, and they were beat by the number 4 alliance

Just remember that teams should be picking other teams that they work well with. So if that means that the #1 seed picks #2 seed so be it.

Mallot1243 I think you will like this quick little story. In 2003 the Techno-Ticks (236) and Buzz(175) paired up at the UTC regional and won it. Now going into the alliance selection at Nationals (Galileo division) the Techno-Ticks were seeded 60th, and Buzz was seeded 17th. Now team 341 (Miss Daisy) did thier scouting and knew how good these 2 teams were together. (Yeah even though Miss Daisy was the 4th seed it still goes to show a few things I think). 341 picked Buzz as thier first pick and people who didn’t know about them were like what is going on why did they pick such a low seed. And then when they picked techno-ticks people were uterly amazed and didn’t think they would do that well. Well they went on to win thier division, but lost against the 2003 national champions in the semi-s on Einstien.

So this just goes to show you sometimes it does pay to pick lower seeds. :slight_smile:

The current system is already hurting the #1 seed enough as it is (compared to prior years). There’s no reason to further handicap the top teams.

NASA/VCU Regional:
#1 seeded 1731 picks #2 seeded 414, and loses in the semi-finals.

Arizona Regional:
#1 seeded 987 picks #6 seeded 1241 and loses in the finals.

Great Lakes Regional:
#1 seeded 469 picks #6 seeded 451 and loses in the finals.

3 more instances of when #1 seeds picked top 8 seeds and lost. The top alliances already have huge penelizations by the serpentine selection system, they deserve no more.

try to look at it from all sides of things if you are the #1 or #2 seed and agree to join up its an easy decision and all the work you’ve put in for the past 2 months has paid off already. driving as on of those teams in that situation is very calm and your not worried about anything because you know exactly whats going to happen. if your in that situation its great and in my opinion you deserve it, the only teams complaining about the #1 seed’s ability to pick the most powerful robot are the teams who have to compete against it. the idea about changing the alliance picking from 1-8 then 8-1 is to make shure the highest seed alliance gets a good pick and a not so good pick. the system is not perfect but its all just rules in the game. if you can have a strategy to use the rules to your advantage you will come out on top.

I personally like this year’s change in picking order. Scouting becomes much more important to the number one seed. I’d know; our second round pick at Chesapeake, 1184, was seeded 39th (I think); as coach, I had never seen them play, but our scouts (as well as Buzz’s once they spoke to our alliance captain) swore they were a good robot who had some bad luck. They were right. We (the number one seed) picked the 3rd seed, who declined, and then the 4th seed (Buzz), but then picked a lower seeded team. It worked out very well for us.

Buckeye Regional:
#1 seeded 963 picks #2 seeded 123 and loses in the semi-finals.

Just as a clarification, the standings on FIRST’s website for the Great Lakes regional are incorrect. Jack Jones has listed the correct (to the best of my knowledge) standings here: http://www.grovesrobotics.org/GLR/
(We were the second seed)

On topic, I prefer the previous system used before this year. To me, I feel that if a team has worked their butts off to be the highest seed in the regional, they deserve their picks of alliance partners. This year’s, while it does make the playing field more level in the eliminations, does handicap the higher seeds in a way, especially at the smaller regionals. Don’t get me wrong, our third seeds were great defensive robots at both GLR and DET, but at Atlanta, I wouldn’t be surprised if the lower seeded teams had three shooters whereas the higher seeds might not be able to get a third.

During the Peachtree regional, our decision to pick #2 was not solely that they were #2. The offered a complete complement to our strengths. We were good shooter with good movement. Team 1414 was a lower goal bot with great autonomous capability. Their size and power helped out quite a bit too. Our third pick (1057) was another shooter with strong power and great defense. All around, the complement was good. The one thing that I see was lacking was a robot that could shoot with a vision turret.

I don’t know if they’d want a third. I’ve noticed a lot of the best alliances had 2 shooters and 1 low goal/defensive robot. It keeps things from getting too crowded by the center goal, and also makes them much harder to defend against.