Trying not to seed....

Posted by Jim Meyer at 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST

Engineer on team #67, HOT Team, from Huron Valley Schools and GM Milford Proving Ground.

I was just wondering if any teams out there have thought that they might be better off if they were not in the top 8?

The fact that doing poorly in a match may help one team but hurt the other 3 has been bothering me. It just disappoints me that this aspect of the game is back.

Is there anyone else out there that would like to see a system where it never helped a team to do poorly?

Did last years system, where you could pick any team regardless of their seed, have some negative effect that I am not aware of?

Posted by Bradley Mock at 03/16/2001 9:05 AM EST

Coach on team #250, Shen, from RPI and GE/Verizon.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

I cannot think of any reason you would not want to be in the top 8 or why you would not want to be number 1. i would want to build my alliance based on what i know of my own skill and other teams’ skill rather than hoping that someone else picks a good team and picks me to be on it too.
the only thing i can see is trying to specifically seed yourself within the top 8 so that you are automaticaly paired with another team you like. this is basically impossible unless you are the last match of the day though. even then it is hard.
please explain why you would not want to be seeded cause i can’t think of anything. even if you make a deal with another team for them to pick you, do you want to risk not getting picked after all? also, what if another alliance picks you first? do you want to risk all this, or just go out and do your best? i would want to do my best and know that i can make an alliance that will beat all the others.

Posted by bill whitley at 03/16/2001 11:52 AM EST

Student on team #70, Auto City Bandits, from Powers Catholic High School and Kettering University.

In Reply to: Re: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Bradley Mock on 03/16/2001 9:05 AM EST:

: I cannot think of any reason you would not want to be in the top 8 or why you would not want to be number 1. i would want to build my alliance based on what i know of my own skill and other teams’ skill rather than hoping that someone else picks a good team and picks me to be on it too.
: the only thing i can see is trying to specifically seed yourself within the top 8 so that you are automaticaly paired with another team you like. this is basically impossible unless you are the last match of the day though. even then it is hard.
: please explain why you would not want to be seeded cause i can’t think of anything. even if you make a deal with another team for them to pick you, do you want to risk not getting picked after all? also, what if another alliance picks you first? do you want to risk all this, or just go out and do your best? i would want to do my best and know that i can make an alliance that will beat all the others.

If you are chosen into an alliance, it is more likely that the you will benefit to & from that alliance. The automatic pairing could hurt your alliance, (imagine 71 & 111 automatically paired together), their robots do not compliment each other. In that case, you might be better to not want to seed, and count on your chances of getting picked, and having a better shot at the finals.

Bill
Team #70

Posted by Raul at 03/16/2001 2:03 PM EST

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

In Reply to: Re: Trying not to seed…
Posted by bill whitley on 03/16/2001 11:52 AM EST:

71 and 111 together - bring it on! If we were with 71, then we would just pull a goal over for them or whatever they decided, whatever they think is best for the alliance!

Anyway, I can see where it would be tempting to try to manipulate your seeding in the 5-9 range to be with a certain team. I can think of only one good positive example to manipulate the score: Score a big ball for someone other than yourself so they get the 10% bonus instead of you to prevent you from moving up in the standings by a point or two. I think it will be rare that a team will be presented with an opportunity to do this in this positive way. Thus, I agree that it would be best if they just changed the selection rules to what they did last year and allow seeded teams to pick each other.

However, if I was allowed only one wish to change something, it would not be this. I would use my wish to allow more teams to be in the eliminations from each division in the nationals.

Raul

: If you are chosen into an alliance, it is more likely that the you will benefit to & from that alliance. The automatic pairing could hurt your alliance, (imagine 71 & 111 automatically paired together), their robots do not compliment each other. In that case, you might be better to not want to seed, and count on your chances of getting picked, and having a better shot at the finals.

: Bill
: Team #70

Posted by P.J. Baker at 03/16/2001 10:10 AM EST

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

Jim,

I agree that the possibility is there, but I don’t think it is too much of an issue. In general, I think it might be better to be in the 9-20 range than 5-8 group. I don’t think that this will lead to teams “throwing” rounds though. Most of the teams in the 9-20 group will be within reach of the top 4 spots with a big score in their last match. I think that just about everyone would go for the big round and a chance at picking rather than screw up and count on being drafted.

P.J. Baker

Team #177

Posted by Thomas Grupp at 03/16/2001 12:51 PM EST

Engineer on team #378, Circuit Stompers, from Newfane High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

: I was just wondering if any teams out there have thought that they might be better off if they were not in the top 8?

: The fact that doing poorly in a match may help one team but hurt the other 3 has been bothering me. It just disappoints me that this aspect of the game is back.

: Is there anyone else out there that would like to see a system where it never helped a team to do poorly?

: Did last years system, where you could pick any team regardless of their seed, have some negative effect that I am not aware of?

I can not see how doing poorly in a match can help a team. Other than if they had a deal worked out with a higher seeded team( ie 1-4).

But from where I stand, Being in the top 8 is a goal we hope to achieve, and we would not do anything to purposely be lower than the top 8. If we have the chance.

Secondly, If we were in the top 4 and were the ones doing the selecting. If we knew a team purposely had a low score we would think twice about selecting a team that would be so selfish and not do anything to help the other 3 teams! After all isn’t working together to the whole object!!!

You know Gracious Professionalism!!!

Posted by Justin Ridley at 03/16/2001 1:00 PM EST

Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

I totally agree that this is a problem. This aspect of the game bothers me a lot. In my mind at West Michigan it would have been much better for the HOT team to not seed. Yes that means it very well could have been “wise” for them to throw matches. Now obviously this is not in mosts mind a gracious professional act, including mine. And this is something I would never expect the HOT team to do, (which they didn’t as I watched them continue to put up high scores towards the end of the matches). But still, this temptation is there and I think a system that totally eliminates this desire to actually seed lower would be much better for FIRST.

Will we see teams “throw matches”?. . . perhapes but I find it unlikely

Will we see teams just not try as hard as they might have otherwise?. . . in my opinion this is possible and quite disapointing.

Justin Ridley - MI Roboworks

Posted by Chris at 03/16/2001 5:02 PM EST

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

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

We were seeded #7 or 8 before or last 2 matches! We had two rounds of 41 and 61 and dpopped to 10th! We were picked and them won the UTC regional with the rest of our team!! Would we have won from 8th or 7th. No one will ever know!!!

Chris
Hyper
Team 69
The Ramp\Wedge BOT 2001

Posted by Matt Ryan at 03/16/2001 5:40 PM EST

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

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

At UTC, we were in the top four seeds. After a couple of really bad matches, we dropped out of the running.

If we had stayed where we were, we would not have become a member of the winning alliance.

I think that all teams should try their best and do their best to make top seed. From then on, whatever happens, happens. The only thing that matters is to do your best and have fun.

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 03/16/2001 9:22 PM EST

Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

: I was just wondering if any teams out there have thought that they might be better off if they were not in the top 8?

: The fact that doing poorly in a match may help one team but hurt the other 3 has been bothering me. It just disappoints me that this aspect of the game is back.

: Is there anyone else out there that would like to see a system where it never helped a team to do poorly?

: Did last years system, where you could pick any team regardless of their seed, have some negative effect that I am not aware of?

That interesting point came up this very afternoon at RU. I tell you, at times I thought our partners were working against us!
What was most incredible and distressing to me was what our drive team reported- essentially that many of the teams approached the field with the attitude of " I’m doing what I want and to heck with the rest of you". A few didn’t want to even consider working with their partners. Usually those same robots failed miserably at what they were “expert” at. A number of times robots did self centered, obstructive things which greatly lowered the round score. It seems that the concept of cooperative team work hasn’t caught on with some of us…To get high scores in this game all 4 bots will need to work together to contribute to the whole. There was a distinct lack of that today.
And waht about “extra” robots in rounds. It would be ironic if the best round of the day involved “extra” robots who couldn’t share the score and might lose a seed because of it. We always will do our best but the idea lingers…

Posted by Tim Gates at 03/17/2001 8:22 AM EST

Engineer on team #288, RoboDawgs, from Grandville High School and X-Rite/Delphi.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

My sentiments exactly. If the top 4 seeds did the picking instead of forcing 5-8 with 1-4 it would improve the alliances somewhat. What if the number 1 seed and the number 5 seed are the exact same type of bot. Bummer for all around including the competition. It’s bad enough that the qualifying rounds suffer the luck of the draw, but to thrust it into the elimination rounds compounds the problem. I found myself telling a team member that I’d rather we qualified #9 than #8. I’d rather take my chances being picked on our merits than competing in the eliminations by the luck of the draw. I try to support everything that FIRST comes up with whether or not I agree with it. My main concern is the overall draw to the uninvolved public, whom do not understand the game. While I can appreciate the advantages of the four team alliance in expediting the competition, I can’t think of one sport that is exciting to watch that isn’t heads up competition. Add to the lack of heads up competition, the run away rounds caused by the luck of the draw and forced alliances and you’ve got a mildly interesting but basically boring exhibition.
Although I love Woodie and Dean and have great respect for them, I think this years competition is going to put a dent in what I thought was the main goal of FIRST. That being, to inspire young spectators to take an incresed interest in science and math. As in any sport, rules change for a variety of reasons. But, if you lose the interest of the spectators (non-team members), it’s just a bunch of people getting together to do something they enjoy doing and it only reaches members and families of the teams.
What I would like to see is; the top seeds (one per alliance) pick four teams for their alliance; the value of the stretcher increased to 20 empty. I think this will make for more exciting matches and higher scores. It will not handicap the bridge balancers, because they supply the big multipliers

Posted by Tim Gates at 03/17/2001 8:24 AM EST

Engineer on team #288, RoboDawgs, from Grandville High School and X-Rite/Delphi.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

My sentiments exactly. If the top 4 seeds did the picking instead of forcing 5-8 with 1-4 it would improve the alliances somewhat. What if the number 1 seed and the number 5 seed are the exact same type of bot. Bummer for all around including the competition. It’s bad enough that the qualifying rounds suffer the luck of the draw, but to thrust it into the elimination rounds compounds the problem. I found myself telling a team member that I’d rather we qualified #9 than #8. I’d rather take my chances being picked on our merits than competing in the eliminations by the luck of the draw. I try to support everything that FIRST comes up with whether or not I agree with it. My main concern is the overall draw to the uninvolved public, whom do not understand the game. While I can appreciate the advantages of the four team alliance in expediting the competition, I can’t think of one sport that is exciting to watch that isn’t heads up competition. Add to the lack of heads up competition, the run away rounds caused by the luck of the draw and forced alliances and you’ve got a mildly interesting but basically boring exhibition.
Although I love Woodie and Dean and have great respect for them, I think this years competition is going to put a dent in what I thought was the main goal of FIRST. That being, to inspire young spectators to take an incresed interest in science and math. As in any sport, rules change for a variety of reasons. But, if you lose the interest of the spectators (non-team members), it’s just a bunch of people getting together to do something they enjoy doing and it only reaches members and families of the teams.
What I would like to see is; the top seeds (one per alliance) pick four teams for their alliance; the value of the stretcher increased to 20 empty. I think this will make for more exciting matches and higher scores. It will not handicap the bridge balancers, because they supply the big multipliers

Posted by Michael “Special K” Krass at 03/19/2001 12:05 PM EST

Other on team #271, Mechanical Marauders, from Bay Shore High School and Verizon.

In Reply to: Trying not to seed…
Posted by Jim Meyer on 03/16/2001 8:51 AM EST:

: I was just wondering if any teams out there have thought that they might be better off if they were not in the top 8?

Well, at Long Island, we were assured to be an alliance pick of Sachem (263), as they were in second place with 3 matches remaining. We were ranked ~10th, and we knew if we had a good match, we’d easily move into the top 8, and might not get paired up with Sachem.

But, we decided that it certainly isn’t in the spirit of gracious professionalism to throw a match for our own benefit. It’s an honor just to be in a elimination alliance, no matter with what team you’re playing.

It was a good idea, too, because the second to last round put up the highest score we’d seen yet, and wreaked havoc with all of the standings.