What happened in Curie???

Why weren’t teams seeded 10-28 picked? And how come the top 8 teams did not pick each other? I know that there were two declines, but it seems really weird!

Sounds like a really strange coincidence. But I can’t really see why it would be anything more than coincidence.

From my experience, seed position has little or nothing to do with how good a team is, it is mainly based on luck of the draw. One of the best teams in Atlanta (the Thunder Chickens) seeded 7th, while other teams almost as good seeded very low. I was at a regional where for a while, the number one seed was a robot that had had not played in a match. The robot was not functional and they missed the first 4 matches. The pairing was such that their alliance won those matches w/o them, therefore they were seeded #1. By the end of the quals, they were the 6th seed and chose 2 more teams.

This is my biggest complaint with the seeding system. When a non-functional robot, one that has missed all of its matches is the #1 seed, there is obviously a problem

I agree with you that it’s not perfect, but can you offer anything better?

OPR? i dont know, im just throwing something out there

Does anyone know how the scheduleing is done in atlanta? It seemed like a lot of top notch teams were given very tough schedules, and the less competitive teams (or not well known) easier ones. :confused: I don’t know, I wasn’t there. This is just a simple observation from watching online, it may not hold any weight. It just seemed weird to me, to see so many rookie and not well known teams playing against one another.

OPR can be affected just the same way as rankings can. Strategy is, and should be a factor in FIRST games, and OPR doesn’t always show that.

fuzzy1718, the scheduling is absolutely random, based on team number. (the algorithm try to arrange it so each team doesn’t play more than1 match with/against another team.

There is nothing someone can do to improve the ranking system. 3 out of our 7 matches we had all 3 bots there. 2 out of 7 all three worked. The pairings as people call it may be unfair or not to your liking. So pretty much we lost 5 matches easily. The ranking system didn’t do justice to ours, but its life. In other divisons teams were ranked 9 or 10 and didn’t get picked up. As people have mentioned in other threads, if teams scout right you’ll get picked. Other reasons they come to a conclusion is:

-experience of the team
-other factors unknown to me.

Curie was also very weird to me it seemed. IDK why, but like teams such as 1771 and 190 were ranked very low. While some kinda ok teams ranked very high. So like Martin said its the luck of draw, especially this year teams just can’t just carry an alliance by themselves.

Oh well, next year should be fun.:stuck_out_tongue:

How about keeping track of the points scored by each robot, and using that as part of the seeding formula? (maybe instead of the score of the other team?) that way, the teams that score well will get a boost. This may penalize those teams that specialize in defense, but that could be a good thing. As I pointed out after last year, one does not get ahead in life by preventing others from achieving their goal, but being the best at achieving yours.

I disagree. Being a good offensive team doesn’t meet the goals of FIRST. Strategy has to be a big part, and each team’s individual score doesn’t show that. Teams should be rewarded for playing good defense.

Look at the Field. There were awesome robots that seeded really deep, and there were a lot of so-so robots that seeded high. Also, they way the Elims played out was crazy. Every Quarter Final Series was pushed to three matches (except 217’s QF) and only one higher seed beat the lower seed. There were also 2 inter top 8 selections but they both resulted in Declines.

As far as final rankings go, there were a lot of teams that won regionals or did very well that ranked low. This Always happens at an event like The Championship where great teams play great teams. Remember, one always has to win and one always has to lose. And if you get bad luck and get matched up against awesome robots in 4 of your 7 matches and you’re not getting any help then it’s just how the game goes. Also, there were a lot of teams who came into Curie and got shut down by strategy and good team work in both the Qualifiers and Elims. There were some teams who came in and played exactly like they did in Regionals and well, word travels on how to beat you.

Needless to say, Curie was awesome.

Love the idea martin, maybe then some of the teams that just play defense year after year will wake up. (A huge problem in Michigan)

FIRST is supposed to be not only a competition, but a model for real life. How many people in real life get a promotion at work by preventing a co-worker from doing his job? ( I’m sure it happens, but it is the exception, not the rule).

One of the reasons I liked Overdrive was the limitations on defense. I believe that the GDC can devise a game that stresses goal attainment, while discouraging goal prevention.

I know that match selections threw some really great teams low in the rankings. I know 79 was in Curie and they only won 1 match on their first day because of alliance seletion, they were kinda annoyed. They ended up about 60 something. However, they were the first pick of the #8 seed and were on the list of many other teams. I know that the thunder chickens (seeded #7) was about to pick them.

You are comparing it the wrong way. It’s not compared to an employee who disables another employee at the same company and thus gets promoted, but to an employee who disables a big part of a rival company, and thus gets a promotion.
FIRST is supposed to be a sport, look at any sport in the world (well, almost any) and you see defense. Basketball, Football, Soccer, Tennis…Whatever you want - defense is there, and is a big part of it.

Well think about it a different way then. Im about to apply to college in November. I am going to get in over somebody else because I am more qualified/suited/prepared than they are, not because I stop them from being as qualified/suited/prepared as they could be.

These posts often pop up at the end of events, but the answers to the questions never really change. Randomised ranking is part of the FIRST qualification system and it is something that every single team has to deal with.

While it is indeed unfortunate, and often frustrating, to get paired with robots that, are in your view, weak or, worse yet, don’t show up (particularly this year), good teams are always able to find ways to win. This weekend, some of FIRST’s best teams found ways to seed extremely well (111 and 1114, for example, went undefeated). If you look over their schedules, I’m sure you will find not easy matches; these teams worked extremely hard with what they had and they came out on top.

As for Curie specifically, defense dominated the qualification rounds as teams learned very early that the best way to stop some of the talented scorers in the division was to play a very tough shut down game. This type of strategy saw numerous powerful scorers stymied and left many of them with losses.

We all know that rankings do not really reflect robot performance. Scouting is the only way to discern how well a robot is accomplishing various tasks that your team desires from an alliance partner. I am sure that the teams that seeded in the top 8 were aware of this and chose to select the numerous talented teams that seeded not just outside the top 8, but the top 28 (254 at 34, 1771 at 36, 68 at 51 just to name a few). With such talent available outside the top 28, compared to the robots that ranked from 10 to 28, it is not surprising at all that the alliances ended up as they did.

Disabling a rival company? I can’t think of a legal (not to mention ethical) way to do that other than being better at what you do.

Yes, some sports stress defense, some have none (look at golf) I am not saying that defense has no part in first, but I do believe that it shouldn’t be the only function of a team.

I’m not going to go in the ranking of the robots picked. I would rant on for a whole page on how bad half the decisions were…

Besides the quality of the robots, if anyone else noticed, only 6 of the robots were 4 digit number teams. 18 teams were either double or triple digits. No rookies were picked, 2 2000 teams were picked, and 4 1000 teams were picked. It seemed that the captains didn’t even look at younger teams. Experience is no excuse. Some of young teams that were not picked won regionals, or made it to the finals at their regional. These teams obviously know what it takes to win something, and have just as much experience in this game as a lot of veteran teams. And not mention, older teams are replaced every 4 years. Mentors are the only thing to remain a constant in any team, for the most part. A lot of the young teams that made it to championships have mentors that have been on teams before. In this sense, these teams have the same experience as veterans.

I’m disappointed in what Curie turned into. I would hope that it will change for next year, but I doubt it will change at all.

Golf is an individual sports. The whole comparison to companies/collages doesn’t work here…i can go on comparing it to survivor of the fittest (those who go to caves survive better than those who hunt lions) or to any other thing that suits my goal.

FIRST should be compared to a sport, and in FIRST a better and more offensive robot is not always a better alliance partner.

Many of the teams can’t afford to build good offensive robots, does that mean they are not deserving to play and rank high, even if they have good mechanisms to stop others? Think of the 07’ game - ramp bots did’nt score by themselves, they defended and than used others to get points, and still they were a huge part of the game. 08 had 2 balls for 3 teams, the third one chose between laps and D…

I think defense should stay here. If it was about building the best offensive robot it wouldn’t have been FIRST.