I made an observation at the Los Angeles regional this past weekend that, despite the fact that 18 out of 66 teams (>27%) were rookies, there was not a single rookie team selected for elimination rounds. In total, only 1 rookie team (who was a picker) out of 24 participated in elimination rounds at all, despite my observation of several rookies who seemed to have robots well qualified for the job.
I’m curious if a member of a veteran team can comment on why this was the case:
Do veteran teams bias their scouting towards veterans due to a concern over lack of driver experience or teamwork in eliminations?
Is there a sense of favoritism between teams that know each other more so than rookies?
Would gracious professionalism have any impact on “inviting” a skilled rookie to join their alliance – all other considerations being equal?
Or, was this simply a case that the rookie field this year simply did not have robots that met the compatibility and skill level the veteran pickers were looking for?
Sorry, I need to clarify. There was a reasonably evenly distributed number of rookies vs veterans at most regionals, which I witnessed in San Diego and saw results for at other regionals.
I’m wondering why Los Angeles was an anomaly in this case?
Many times the picking lists don’t get made until right before the alliance selection ceremony and in the rush of getting it done, unknown team numbers get overlooked if their robot wasn’t noted by good scouting.
If you haven’t done the proper scouting you are more likely to select teams that you already know rather than new numbers that are new to you. So in a way is not the rookie team’s fault but the veteran scouter.
It is important that rookie teams approach those teams in the top 10 and tell them about their robot and why they should keep them in mind. Sometimes you can even ask them to watch you matches on Saturday morning and tell them the match numbers. If you talk to the right person, usually they are more likely to keep you in mind.
Totally agree with this. I doubt anyone has an intentional bias against rookies, but in a situation where scouters are hurriedly putting together a pick list, they’re likely to favor veteran teams who they know have been successful in previous years. Unless the rookie team has really stood out in the current regional (and the scouters have done a good job of noting this!), rookie teams will probably be ranked lower than other “familiar” teams.
For what it’s worth, I think the NYC regional had about 10 or 11 rookie teams, and none of them were picked for elims. In fact, 10/24 teams had team numbers under 1000, and 16/24 were under 2000. Very veteran-heavy.
Having been on the other end of being picked, I too questioned whether there was a bias against “young” teams.
Now that we have veteran experience, I can safely state that there is no such bias.
Experienced teams pick their alliance partners based on their scouting data, and how well a given robot will perform within that team’s strategy for winning. The picking team wants to maximize their chances of winning, so they pick the “best” team available. The issue is with the definition of “Best”.
For 1676 at Rutgers, “Best” meant a nimble defensive bot with smart drivers that knew how to avoid fouls. They also needed to be able to balance well, again driver skill. Our pick of 1370 had these qualities. Check their rank to see if they were in the top 24 or not…
So if a rookie team fit the criteria, it would be picked, If not, it wouldn’t. Simple as that.
(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won’t work. We use numbers, not friendships.)
In my second year attending the LA Regional I’ve noticed a veteran team or two that ranked well into the lower half of the table get picked for eliminations over very competent newer teams.
It seems like there is a bit of cronyism mixed in with that idea that a veteran team can handle the pressure better.
973 Had 8 rookie teams on our pick list. Of those 8 ,I was really impressed by both 4141, for having a great looking robot, and 4019, for thinking outside the box when it came to the bridge(our whole team cheered every time we saw that).
When the time came to pick a 3rd we went with a team that looked most attractive by the numbers and willingness to be a team player. If 1836 or 3512 had not been available, we probably would have picked a rookie.
Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don’t think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.
I assume you are talking about us (team 589). We seeded at 33rd place, which is 50th percentile. (Surprisingly, spot on with my prediction) We did not have a ball manipulator because we took it off on Thursday due to weight problems. Why we got picked? Not actually too sure. We were a defensive bot, balancing was pretty much a breeze for us. However, I can say that our ranking was pretty bad because of our role. We were a defensive team, there was no other way to score other than by balancing. We were just a supplement to alliances; we are pretty much useless without an alliance. Of course we had issues, like match 19, where a jaguar pwm cable fell out, and match 36 where the battery fell out.
We also had 2 teams of drivers, with 2 drivers each. There was a single match (24) where I got to drive without any technical problems, I never drove after match 36. I then became the “coach” for the eliminations. The general consensus was that I was the best driver on our team, but had been retired due to the foul I committed on the 24th match.
Actually, that shouldn’t really factor in. Who can assume a team will be effective in elim matches when they haven’t been able to score in qual matches? If a team’s bot isn’t effective, first regional or not, why should they be ranked higher because of their “potential”?
Everyone has code or mechanical issues in their first regional – and most teams only go to one regional (especially rookies) so I don’t see any correlation.
Hi,
Thank you for cheering for us (4019). We loved being part of FIRST and we were in awe with every rookie and veteran team. We are humbled for even being noticed or even considered to be part of an alliance. Maybe next year we would pair up.
Way to go all FRC teams!!!
Much Love,
Aidyl Team 4019 Mechanical Paradise
Eric,
WildStang makes no decision based on team number. Our statisticians look at performance on the field (not win/loss), consistent behavior, robot functions all the time, etc. If you look back at our history we have often won regionals with one or even two rookies at our side. Some of those teams have gone on to be real powerhouse teams like 1625 and 1816 to name just a few. In 2009 we and 67 picked a team that was 66th in the standings because our scouters believed they had what our alliance needed and met the criteria above. Happily they were right and 971 performed admirably. (Thank you again!)
It has been my experience that the teams at the LA regional pick alliance partners based on performance. We were picked for direct eliminations our rookie year as was at least one other rookie team. I know that when we do our scouting, we do not worry about whether a team is a rookie or not, all we worry about is on field performance and what we find out when we visit them in the pits. This year, it just turned out that non-rookie teams got selected over rookie teams. We are a veteran team, but we did not get all of the bugs worked out until the end of the day on Friday, so I knew we had little chance of being selected, even though we did well Saturday morning.
When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.
This was very, VERY true at LA, and probably why I disagreed with our scout, Marc S, on them being on our list.
We probably had about 45 teams on our list friday night, with 15-45 all being on the “watch list”, as it was just too hard to tell from the statistics.
I am agreeing with the sentiments of Joe and Adam. Our scouts had a good idea on the first 10-15 teams on Friday night. Of those top 10-15 one was a rookie. Afterward to start figuring out the next set of teams we needed to do a lot of searching to find what teams would work best with our robot/alliance formation we wanted. We had a bunch of teams that fell into this group. Finding the right one that fits with our robot, strategy is a tough task for any team.
I will admit our scouting while leaps and bounds better than what it was in years past, has a long way to go. We collected a lot of great data and performance numbers. Putting that data to great use is our next step.
Regardless we make our picks based upon on field performance regardless of ranking (this year with better data) and based upon how the team rounds out our alliance.