One of the first things that creeps up into my mind about logistics at competition is the match pairings at UTC and how the first four are the exact same as the practice rounds. I’m curious as to whether this was the same at other regionals and if anyone knows why this decision was made.
Also, I am curious as to whether everyone feels that this is a good way for the practice rounds to be setup, as well as whether it was easier, harder or indifferent for your team.
Thanks, everyone, you all always somehow know how to answer all my random questions.
i’ve never been a fan of the way the pairing system works. it is as if you are grouped with a set of teams, and you never get to compete either with or against any of the other teams at a regional. at UTC there were at least 5 or 6 teams that we had multiple matches with. i would like to see the match pairings get a little more diversified.
as far as the practice rounds, i didn’t really think it hurt anything strategically, its just another case of FIRST grouping the same teams together again and again.
Ya i notice this to, another thing at the UCF regional for at least us we would be paired with a team and then in a later match we would be against this team. Our the matchings “random” or is there a system for doing so. Because at the UCF regional it seemed like “strong” teams got paired maybe wiht nto so strong teams or rookies
I didn’t feel any bias in how the pairings were set up at Sacramento, though all but two teams we were paired with we played against in the next match–not sure how that works…
I believe that this is how the system works. In both our regionals (NJ and Annapolis) we faced the teams we had just been allied with in the next round for most of the rounds. I havent really looked at exactly what the pattern is, but maybe it is intended to make the fact that lucky pairings can make a big differences. IE if you are paired with a good team and win because of them, you will face them in the next round and most likely lose. If you are good, you will win both.
As for the practice rounds matching qualifying rounds, we did not have any coincidence.
…I created this thread to talk about practice rounds matching the first four, not about how teams seem to be paired with and then later against one another. If you’d like a separate discussion about that, I’d be happy to start it.
I didn’t notice any particular system, but at the SBPLI Regional we noticed the same pattern- you played with many of the same teams over and over. My scouting sheets were a mess because there was so much overlap between our alliances and our opponents. =)
I didn’t notice much about the practice rounds in comparison to the first few qualifying matches, but I did think it was a disadvantage to have so much overlap. Well, not necessarily a disadvantage, because sometimes you would have an alliance with someone and then play against them so you’d know their strategy. But then at the same time, they knew all about yours.
But I think it would be better to have more switching. You’d get to see more robots, and you’d learn more. And if you made it past the qualifying matches, you’d be more prepared because you would have seen more robots instead of the same ones over and over. So you’d be more likely to have already seen your opponents. I hope that made sense.
I think the same kind of thing happened in Trenton…but that was 2 whole weeks ago, so I don’t really remember. =)
I’m on the drive team and I didn’t even notice they were the same. Practice day there isnt much competition and your just trying out new things with yourself mostly. It doesn’t really matter who’s out there with you. I see no problem with using the same pairings.
The Peachtree regional was done this way as well (practice rounds == first real rounds).
It didn’t really bother me (we won them all anyway) … but I wish FIRST would change this before the championship. I’m going to operate on the assumption that they won’t … and play the practice matches in a way to get ideas for the real match the next day.
Jessica,
Seems to me that the same set up was used at Detroit, At first our competitive assessment team thought that there was some kind of mistake made, but we were told “no mistake was made”. Now that everyone knows what the set up is, I hope first randomizes the alliances for the first 4 matches instead of using the practice alliances. I don’t much care if they use the alliance partner switch to opponent as it will help them when it comes to creating the random number generator rules used to assign alliances. My bigger concern is that it becomes so predictable that the strategies begin to impact how the matches are played (particularly if seeding position is potentially jeopardized).
