There can be no REJECTIONS!!!!!!!!!

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Brian Beatty, Engineer on team #71, Team Hammond, from Hammond Schools and Beatty Machine.

Posted on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST

After being seeded 10th on Friday, 8th on Saturday, then winning the regional, our team was on an emotional roller coaster all weekend. We have viewed this competition from the perspective of picking from #1 seed(Midwest Regional), #8 seed, and the strong likelyhood of being picked ourselves. Result: THERE CAN BE NO REJECTIONS AT THE NATIONALS. There is not enough space and time to go into all the details, but here is a synopsis.

  1. It negates the seeding process.
  2. The temptation to throw a match is too great.
  3. The politics that goes on during the selection
    process is ungainly and degrading-teams are
    trying to hold out for the highest “bidder”.

Bottom line: Allow 45 minutes for teams to discuss with each other about their machines, strategy, and philosphy. Top eight teams then rank their potential partners. Then it goes straight line through the seeding. If you really don’t like somebody, you do not have to accept. In that case, you’re done and get to watch from the stands.
In conclusion, this measure has to be taken immediately to preserve the fairness and integrity of the competition.

Thanks again to Mike, Greg, Raul, Dan, and Bob for their unbelievable patience and professionalism-it could have been real ugly.

                      Sincerely,
                               
                          Brian Beatty
2

Posted by jake, Other on team #177, Bobcats Robotics, from South Windsor High and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 3/28/99 1:49 PM MST

In Reply to: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Brian Beatty on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST:

As crazy as that sounds, I think it’s the only way. There has been WAY too much skepticism going on with all these pre-determined alliances, politics and throwing matches that I think this could be the only answer. I don’t necessarily like the idea that you can’t turn down an offer, because maybe you don’t feel that you are very compliant with their machine, but I definitely prefer that to all these scenarios that have surfaced. I’m with you Brian.

-Jake

3

Posted by Justin Ridley, Student on team #27, Team Rush, from OSMTech Academy and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 3/28/99 3:25 PM MST

In Reply to: I agree… posted by jake on 3/28/99 1:49 PM MST:

I agree 100% as well. If a team is seeded #1 they have gained the right to choose anyone they want to, THEY have earned that right. If they want team B, then team B should be the team they get. It seems like the teams under the top 8 are the ones who are really choosing the alliences. As one of those teams it is nice to be able to choose which you would like to play with out of the ones asking you before hand, but you didn’t earn that right and it’s really not fair. Another thing is now with the three team alliances a team may be picked later in the first round, it declines all the first round offers to be with the number one seed and it’s first pick, making an extremely strong three team alliance. This is simply not fair. If FIRST makes it a rule that you cannot decline offers, then it would eliminate many of these problems.

-Justin Ridley, Team 27

4

Posted by Michael Martus, Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 3/28/99 7:17 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I agree… posted by Justin Ridley on 3/28/99 3:25 PM MST:

I feel that FIRST must, I repeat must, make a ruling that states if you
decline an offer, you then reject ALL offers and do not play in the remainder of the competition.
Think about it, there is a great possibility
that a team in their last qualifier can make a deal with #1 to lose the
match and get picked. This hurts their alliance partner and also taints
the spirit of the competition. The possibility of this happenning is great now that all teams have seen or have scouting reports on all teams. Notice the increase in declines at the Great Lakes as opposed to the other regionals. This is a very dangerous path to go down.
My opinion only.

5

Posted by Brandon, Student on team #217, Team Macomb, from MMSTC and Ford.

Posted on 3/28/99 8:16 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I agree… posted by Michael Martus on 3/28/99 7:17 PM MST:

Being able to decline is very important to the FIRST game. This rule forces the top 8 seeds to market themselve to the teams they want to be with. In the Great Lakes Regional we sold ourselve to team #135. Because of our skills to market ourself, they turned down an offer from the #2 seed team. This makes sure you not only have a good robot, but you must also be able to market yourself to the other teams. The spirt of FIRST is not hurt because a team declines. Another thing is that a team will never throw a round to be a lower seed, there is to much pride in a robot to ever have that happen.

6

Posted by jake, Other on team #177, Bobcats Robotics, from South Windsor High and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 3/28/99 10:31 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I agree… posted by Brandon on 3/28/99 8:16 PM MST:

The Spirit of FIRST also has nothing to do with marketing, and I quite frankly find it a little degrading to have to “market” my team to others whom have seeded lower than I to make them want to ally with me. The way that this competition is set up gives all of the power to the teams NOT in the top 8. Back in the day, everybody fought so that they could be #1, and advance strait to the quarter finals. With the system as it is, seeding is not necessarily important, for the teams with the true power lie not in the top 8, but in the ranks shortly there after.

Jake

7

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 7:28 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I agree… posted by Justin Ridley on 3/28/99 3:25 PM MST:

I disagree. I think a robot deserves the right to be with whomever it deems most worthy. We changed this rule because we were worried that the top 8 teams may not really be in order of ability (luck plays a huge part due to the small amount of QMs). Say, for example, Beatty gets seeded #8 because they had some tougher opponents than #1 seed went up against. Shouldn’t the best robot get the best partner? Don’t we want the best three robots to win this thing? If a top 8 seeded team is good enough to convince some other team to reject a higher seed, don’t they then deserve to have first pick? C’mon!

You guys seem scared that some “POWER” alliance will be formed with three awesome robots and end up taking it all. But you know what? THAT’S THE POINT! Don’t we want our #1 alliance to have the #1 teams?? I say people are smarter than you’re giving them credit. This rule lets the best robots have the best alliance partners regardless of seeding (which we’ve already seen is largely inaccurate). Let the best of the best take home the gold. That’s what GOLD means.

Reactions?

-Daniel

8

Posted by Kate Leach, Student on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode / RS Machines.

Posted on 3/28/99 8:20 PM MST

In Reply to: I DONT posted by Daniel on 3/28/99 7:28 PM MST:

“Don’t we want our #1 alliance to have the #1 teams??”

I think that when we get to the elimination matches, a lot of people root for the underdog as opposed to the team that’s ranked #1. The #1 seed has already proven that they’ve got some mad skills, and this might not quite be the case here seeing as though we’ve only got 4 qualification matches, but let’s just go with this thought before I start contradicting myself… The #1 seed has proven themselves. Anyone under them doesn’t really have much to lose when they play against them. People like to see good competition. It’s always cool to see the teams at the top win, but y’know when they do, it’s kinda like… Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. It’s cool to see the underdog bring down the reigning champion. The underdog has a chance to prove themselves whereas the higher ranked team already has. I guess what I’m trying to say is that not everyone wants the #1 seed to win. I know that some people were disappointed that the #1 seed won. If they do win, there’s no major upsets during the elimination rounds. Upsets are cool. I mean, if you’re on the team that gets taken down, it’s not all too cool, but from the crowd’s point of view, it’s more exciting if there’s an upset.

Well, now that I’ve rambled on for a while, I hope I got my point across.

-KATe-
Co-Captain '99
Team Merrimack #166
“Tommy Hawk”

9

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 9:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Underdogs posted by Kate Leach on 3/28/99 8:20 PM MST:

Kate,
We’re on the same side here. That’s exactly what I was saying. By “#1 alliance” I meant best…not #1 seed. Check my message again =)

-Daniel

10

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

Posted on 3/28/99 4:44 PM MST

In Reply to: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Brian Beatty on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST:

I’m with you Brian! I’m glad you feel this way. But it’s really up to ALL the great FIRST teams to band together to stop it from happening. This is a wonderful chance for everyone to come together and announce your intentions regarding this subject. Post a message regarding your feelings, FIRST monitors this site and it would be a great way to get the word back to them - for or against.
Otherwise, maybe those teams that have made alliances could mark their pit # with a star, so that other teams may avoid the embarassment of asking them only to be turned down. Just an idea - lets hear others!

11

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

Posted on 3/28/99 6:47 PM MST

In Reply to: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Brian Beatty on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST:

Thank you Brian!

Your proposal goes farther than I have proposed elsewhere, but you are exactly correct.

I think that FIRST should listen to this proposal.

A Kindred Spirit,

Joe J.

12

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 3/28/99 7:56 PM MST

In Reply to: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Brian Beatty on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST:

:
We attended two regional competitions this year. Our first time out I was surprised by the number of deal offers that were available. We resisted all and made our first selection. This weekend in Michigan we were in a good position on Friday and found that a number of potential teams would not be available if we picked them because of deals that were already being arranged. So we jumped in the game of trying to sew up partners ahead of time. I liked the first way much better. While I am quite sure that no matches were thrown, there should not be any situation that losing could be beneficial to a team. There should also not be any situations that it would be beneficial to reject a draft pick. Brian is quite right that except for the integrity of the people involved this could get out of hand. I agree that there should be no rejections allowed. But even if this is not an official rule, having been there, it is the rule that the Bomb Squad is going to follow.

13

Posted by Cartman, Student on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High.

Posted on 3/28/99 8:59 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Greg Mills on 3/28/99 7:56 PM MST:

I feel the same way. I hope there are more team like yours out there. there should be no rejections, even if it isn’t a rule. I hope that there are none in Florida.
Our team will handle it the same way yours does Greg. I hope most teams agree & will do the same.

14

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 3/29/99 10:38 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Cartman on 3/28/99 8:59 PM MST:

I disagree that there are no good reasons to refuse an alliance. The innability of a team to reject an offer can be just as abused as allowing rejections. A team could use this rule to draft the team most capable of defeating them just to keep them from being choosen by an opponent.

Take this example: the #1 seed chooses their first partner, the partner they intend to play all their matches with, then choose a second for the soul purpose of making that team inaccesible to another alliance with no intention of ever fielding them. If the team choosen second knows that the #2 seed wants them as their second pick and will play them they should have the option to turn down the #1 seed.

The scenario gets even worse when you imagine that the team they really want as their number one pick took a dive or feigned injury to be unappealing to the other teams allowing the #1 seed to pick their arch-enemy first. This may be far-fetched, but not more so than some of the doom-n-gloom scenarios given as reasons to eliminate rejections.

You might say this arch-enemy team should be glad to be on the number 1 seed alliance because they have the best chance of winning, but we’re in it to PLAY more than just to win! I’m willing to work with whatever rules FIRST believes to be necessary and fair, I’m just providing another point of view.

Jeff Burch

15

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

Posted on 3/29/99 1:56 AM MST

In Reply to: There can be no REJECTIONS!!! posted by Brian Beatty on 3/28/99 12:58 PM MST:

I have just read a ton of messages on this board on various subjects. Its amazing how passionate we are about this great competition that we are trying to dissect. We all have many different ideas and opinions on how things should be done. I don’t
know what to say; my head is spinning with ideas.

I can’t help but think that we have lost track of what FIRST is all about. I don’t need to explain to you what the letters in FIRST mean.

We the Wildstang team (I think I can speak for most of us), ha
d a great time at Great lakes. Sure, we were turned down by some teams and a few others warned us ahead of time that they wanted to play with another team. Hey, I was not offended by any team who rejected us.
I JUST WANT TO PLAY BALL! I just want
to enjoy the competition. We just want a fair shot, not any advantage, not any deals or commitments.

I don’t want to have to worry about marketing our robot to a team in order to convince them that we are worthy of their alliance. Shouldn’t our perform
ance in the QM’s be enough to show what we can do? If a team does not feel that we are worthy, we will just go to the next team on our list and ask them.

So, not matter what the rules at Nationals, we will be there to have fun and play ball.

I would
like also like to thank the Cosmo Force and Woburn Robotics teams for accepting our alliance. Your teams are a group of classy people. I feel bad we did not get Woburn Robotics a chance to play in a match.

Excuse the long and incoherent messages - it
is 2:45 AM and I could not sleep.

Good luck to all and I wish you fruitful alliances.

Raul

16

Posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy, Other on team #188, Woburn Robotics, from Woburn C.I…

Posted on 3/29/99 12:57 PM MST

In Reply to: ‘‘I just want to play ball’’ - Shoeless Joe
posted by Raul on 3/29/99 1:56 AM MST:

: I would like also like to thank the Cosmo Force and Woburn Robotics teams for accepting our alliance. Your teams are a group of classy people. I feel bad we did not get Woburn Robotics a chance to play in a match.

: Excuse the long and incoheren

t messages - it is 2:45 AM and I could not sleep.

: Good luck to all and I wish you fruitful alliances.

: Raul

We from Woburn Robotics also wanted to thank you very much for giving us
the chance to participate in the elimination matches with such

great teams
as WildStang and Cosmosaurus. We hope the great relationship between our teams continues
throughout the finals in Florida.

Karthik K.
University of Waterloo
Pure Mathematics

17

Posted by Brian Beatty, Engineer on team #71, Team Hammond, from Hammond Schools and Beatty Machine.

Posted on 3/29/99 5:43 PM MST

In Reply to: ‘‘I just want to play ball’’ - Shoeless Joe
posted by Raul on 3/29/99 1:56 AM MST:

My last message was not intended to stir up controversy. I’m with you Raul, I want to have a good time. However, my totally sleepless night came on Friday after the first day of Q-matches. After all the pre-alliance BS that Baxter, Motorola, and Beatt
y had to go through, I was not having a good time. Hopefully, FIRST does make a modification to the rules to greatly reduce the awkwardness, game-playing, and discomfort of the selection process. That is the intention of these messages. But if the rules a
re not changed, that’s OK. We’re with you Greg(Baxter)and Raul, we are not going to play the political game at Nationals. If we’re fortunate enough to play in the E-matches and
it’s the 290th seed, that’s OK, we’re going to have fun and try to win.

As for throwing matches, I did not intend that to be the main reason for changing the rules-the selection process is the #1 reason. There are all kinds of messages now of people reacting to the obvious potential for us to throw match 6 for a sure high pic
k. What concerned me was the first person to mention it on Friday(I’m naive) was our soon-to-be valedictorian driver. He is a fine young man, and probably would never have done it, but it was there. While this sort of thing occurs in sports all the time(
future draft picks,ect.), it should be minimized if possible. Agreed, under my proposed idea, it will not be eliminated.

Enough for now, my head is also spinning(especially since I just finished watching the game films of #47 vs. #111-WOW!!!)

Thanks
everyone,

Brian Beatty

18

Posted by Brandon, Student on team #217, Team Macomb, from MMSTC and Ford.

Posted on 3/29/99 7:44 PM MST

In Reply to: ‘I just want to play ball’ - Shoeless Joe posted by Raul on 3/29/99 1:56 AM MST:

Right on, my friend. We should be having fun, not nit-picking the rules