Picker Or Pickee

FIRST General Forum
21

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/9/2000 7:32 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Picker Or Pickee posted by Lora Knepper on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST:

Frankly, I don’t really see the problem with having these so-called ‘supper-alliances’. If these two robots are the best, they deserve the privalege of working together. After all, shouldn’t the first prize be awarded to the best two robots? I’d be impressive to watch, and I’m sure there would still be VERY tough competition and VERY close matches. I have yet to see a year when there were two robots so dramatically better than all the others that when paired up, nobody would stand a chance. Remember: strategy is key.

Maybe? Maybe not?

-DL

22

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Picker Or Pickee posted by Lora Knepper on 1/9/2000 7:19 PM MST:

I have to agree with Joe on this one. The odds of having the 16 best teams with the 16 highest QP’s is astronomical. If you thought luck played a big role last year with alliance selections in seeding matches, wait until this year. With so many new teams, especially at the nationals, some very good teams are likely to be matched with a majority of not-so-good teams. We would need many more seeding matches.

What makes things worse is that with the scoring system for QP’s (loser’s score), the capabilities of your robot will be even less of a factor in determining how high you get seeded.

However, I am so happy that I can use any amount aluminum extrusion from the additional list that this wierd scoring system and its necessary strategy has not sunk in. For the first time in 4 years we will not require our welder to risk his health welding electrical conduit with its toxic coating!

No matter what, if you have a good robot, you increase your chances.

I also agree with Daniel - there will be enough good teams at the nationals to ensure it is not a blowout.

Just my two or three cents worth.

Raul

23

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/10/2000 2:10 PM MST

In Reply to: This is Wierd - I agree with Joe posted by Raul on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST:

Tell me about these aluminum extrusions.

I get the concept: you run alluminum through a die that cuts a long bar into a specific shape. But what about the teams that don’t have this capability?? Doesn’t that make our job even harder? Or maybe there’s a specific profile that’s standard and good and buyable. What’s the deal?

Thanks in advance for any info.

-DL

24

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 6:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Aluminum extrusions. posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 2:10 PM MST:

The aluminum extrustion rule is about as big of a loop hole in the Additional Hardware List as I have ever seen (and I LIKE IT! ;-).

It is my understanding that any constant section aluminum extrusion of any length can be used provided that it is ‘off the shelf’ (i.e. not a custom section extruded just for you) and its section is no bigger than 2 by 3.

This is HUGE!

There are a nearly unlimited variety available (many are available in sections intended for use with T-nuts, corner braces, etc.).

Good luck.

Joe J.

25

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Ypsilanti HS/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 1/10/2000 7:38 PM MST

In Reply to: They make it, you BUY it :wink: posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:07 PM MST:

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but from how I’m reading the AHL this year, it seems like that for just about everything, we’re allowed any amount we want…and without it digging into our $425 for a change! Looks good to me… =)

Nate

26

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST

In Reply to: And that’s not all… posted by Nate Smith on 1/10/2000 7:38 PM MST:

You’re right. Thought my team can’t even afford to buy $425 worth of stuff, let alone ‘any amount we want’. AHHHH!!! =)

27

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that’s not all… posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST:

I wouldn’t worry, I expect to have a lot of fun getting to play with you guys this year! :wink: And if you need any help while in competiton, stop by pit 69 and we’ll help you with anything we can.

Good Luck,
Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

28

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:01 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that’s not all… posted by Lora Knepper on 1/10/2000 9:33 PM MST:

Thanks =)

29

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:51 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: And that’s not all… posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 8:25 PM MST:

Like Raul & Joe, I was actually cheering when I read about FIRST letting us use aluminum extrusions… thanks FIRST!

I’ve been using aluminum extrusions for designing machines at Delphi for the past seven years. So, for what it’s worth, here are my opinions & suggestions.

  1. What type should you use?
    Like Joe said, there are these types with t-slots in them. These are what I suggest. There are four main companies who make the same type of extrusion:
    …Item Products (all over US)
    …Item MB (German, original maker, smaller US presence)
    …ParFrame (Parker Hannifin, all over US)
    …80/20 (metric type…all over midwest)

These four types are mostly interchangeable… but not completely. Item MB has the best selection, and they can distribute out of Dayton, OH. They all have lowered their prices considerably during the past 3 years… competition is getting fierce.

I would bet money that most distributors of these components would donate a decent amount of extrusions and simple fasteners to your FIRST team. Just tell them that they are dealing with prospective engineering students who know little about aluminum extrusions and let them give a 1/2 hour ‘speel’ on their extrusion product.

These extrusion companies have very good catologs that take a while to understand all that is available. Also, these catalogs will tell you how to use their extrusions, fasteners and joining plates.

Get yourself educated about these extrusions and use them. As you can see, we’ll use them, along with Wildstang and ChiefDelphi… so you better get some yourself. Beg and plead if you must… just use them.

Think about it… high strength, pre-fabbed, lightweight sticks with adjustable fasteners and neat-o bearing possiblilites with the t-slots… woof!

Check out these companies sites (see links below).
www.item-products.com
www.8020.net

Good luck,
Andy B.

30

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O’Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST

In Reply to: Picker Or Pickee posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 6:57 PM MST:

… i’m glad you think that my old team and Team Hammond would have made a champion alliance… it would have been a pleasure :slight_smile:

now i have a question on the point you just made (may have missed this in the rule)… but as you said, as #2 seed, you could graciously decline the #1 seed’s offer - however, would that decline take you out of the finals all together? by way of rule GM26 ‘Teams may decline an offer when asked to ally for the elimination matches, however if a team declines they are no longer eligible to be chosen…’ I know it says that they can’t be chosen- but in the idea in which FIRST developed that rule, it is feeling that declining an offer basically declines you the chance to compete in finals…

what do you think FIRST is looking for? and what do you guys think they’d do in that case?

31

Posted by Jon.

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

Posted on 1/9/2000 9:59 PM MST

In Reply to: When the Pickee declines… posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:

i think that if you decline the offer, you are saying you don’t want to be in the big show.

i think that if i was in the top 8 and was asked by another top 8 to dance with them, i’d be honored and would accept. Not getting to go is a fairly big deal…

32

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST

In Reply to: When the Pickee declines… posted by colleen on 1/9/2000 9:30 PM MST:

Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

Bill B

33

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines… posted by Bill Beatty on 1/9/2000 10:56 PM MST:

: Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

My interpretation is the same as Bill’s, but I’m not convinced the wording isn’t an oversight.

I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I’ll post any response I receive here.

Jerry

34

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines… posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 12:31 AM MST:

: : Obviously I am interpreting the rule as it is written. You can not accept another selection but you can still be a picker. BTW, Dean ducked that question at the kickoff.

: My interpretation is the same as Bill’s, but I’m not convinced the wording isn’t an oversight.

: I sent Eric an E-mail requesting clarification of this rule. I’ll post any response I receive here.

According to Eric, this issue is under discussion at FIRST. Keep your eyes on the Team Updates for more information.

Given that the issue is being debated at FIRST, perhaps a discussion here is in order should they decide to consider our opinions in making a decision.

With rule GM26 as written, I do not think it should be applied to teams who reject an offer to form an alliance if doing so allows them to form their own alliance - on the basis of either initial seeding or being bumped up by higher seeded teams forming an alliance.

Being the primary team of an alliance - being the picker instead of the pickee - may be considered by some teams to be a significant measure of their accomplishment in the competition. Certainly, not all teams will agree. But I don’t think it is fair to deprive those who feel this way of the opportunity they earned simply to appease another team.

Jerry

35

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: When the Pickee declines… posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 3:43 PM MST:

I vote for no rejections. period.

There are many many fewer back room deals situations that can arise.

I liked the straight forwardness of the picking in this method.

Either the seeding means something or it does not. If it does, then those who seed higher should get the advantage of the seed. We all know that the seeding does not really always come out in exact order, but we all live with it. If we want to say that the seeding order really doesn’t matter, then we should toss all the team that seeded above the XXX percentile in a hat and then pick them in random order. As each of the first 8 teams get their number pulled from the hat, they would pick their partner (from among ALL teams not already picked – even folks in the hat). After 8 teams have picked, these 8 would get a second pick in random order pulled from the hat.

At least this method would acknowledge the luck factor in determining the seeding rankings.

Any thoughts?

Joe J.

36

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O’Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/10/2000 8:31 PM MST

In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:

i say no rejections too…

if you reject… (as mentioned in someone’s post earlier i think!) you’re saying basically you don’t want to play in the finals… i really think that’s the message FIRST is trying to get across… rejections are something they don’t want to see at all…

plus…#1 should have #1 choice… meaning they literally have their pick of the field…

37

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST

In Reply to: No Rejects posted by colleen on 1/10/2000 8:31 PM MST:

I know my opinion on this issue is very controversial because it WAS last time. But here it is:

I don’t see why, if the #1 seed is really the best robot out there, that their first choice wouldn’t want to work with them. Everyone seemingly wants so very much to win, so why would somebody throw that away for anything other than a good reason? Rejections were originally the factor that countered the ‘luck’ issue in determining seed. For example, if a team was really third best but they won #1 seed from some fluke, teams who know themselves to be the best pick will hold out to be picked by the ‘best’ team. This gets us what we want! A first place alliance of the best two robots! I was never truly convinced that teams don’t deserve the right to reject an alliance request.

HOWEVER…

This year it’s much less likely that teams will be seeded out of order. Last year, one lucky 540 or anything close would raise a team by thousands of qualifying points. This was just silly! One match could mean the difference between 9th seed and 1st seed. That should never be the case. This year, the likelihood of one match making the difference for a team is very low. Scores don’t go up exponentially like they used to. No multipliers.

SO…

I don’t forsee much need to reject. FIRST may as well make it impossible.

Any thoughts?
-DL

38

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/10/2000 9:29 PM MST

In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn’t make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:

I see where you’re going with this Daniel, and I must say that I agree with you. The way FIRST has made the game this year, seems to eliminate the problem of the huge scoring rounds that would push teams way up in the seeding. I think that the seeding matches are going to be very close this year, with standings constantly changing. I’m not sure if a team should be given the right to reject an alliance request, but their really shouldn’t be a need anyway. So there, I think I’ve babbled long enough! :wink:

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

39

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST

In Reply to: I love rejections, but it doesn’t make sence this year! posted by Daniel on 1/10/2000 9:12 PM MST:

I’m another person who disagreed with the no-rejection rule last year - and I still do.

Unlike Daniel, my objections have nothing to do with the accuracy of the seedings.

Drawing an analogy to the real world, I don’t think a team’s ranking should give it absolute control over another team any more than a company’s size gives it absolute control over another company. In both cases, the better team/bigger company may be the most attractive partner for many, but there are some who would rather team up with another team/company for reasons of their own. I feel they should be allowed to do so.

One objection raised last year was that if rejections are allowed a team might throw matches in order to drop their seeding so they could be picked as a partner by a higher ranked team. That is not a factor this year because a seeded team can be selected as a partner by a higher ranked team. While there are still some situations where a team might benefit by throwing a match to hurt their alliance partner, these situations are not eliminated by a ‘no reject’ rule. And I honestly don’t believe there are many, if any teams, who would do this.

For those who can’t get past the conspiracy theories, try this one out:

Team 12 and team 4 desire to be alliance partners in the elimination rounds (the team numbers used here are the seeding ranks). Team 12 notifies teams 1-3 that it does not wish to be in an alliance with them prior to the selection process.

Team 2 ignores team 12’s objection and chooses them as a partner. Team 12, irate over their slection by team 2, decides to accept the invitation. They also decide to teach team 2 a lesson by throwing their matches…

Jerry

40

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/10/2000 11:09 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I love rejections, but it doesn’t make sense this year! posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/10/2000 10:57 PM MST:

Nobody will throw matches in the elimination rounds. That would just be silly. I think people are way too competitive to do that. They want too much to win to throw away their own chances.

I think it would help your argument if you give a few practical reasons as to why someone would turn down a higher seeded alliance. I mostly agree with you on that but it really would help if you state some cases. As it is now, the only case you put fourth was highly improbable. Just a suggestion.

-DL