This was kind of common back in the day. So before RP were a thing you were mostly sorted by Win-loss record. Then from at least 2005 (the birth of the 3v3 era) here was the first order sort after win loss:
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the unpenalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
So utilizing your opponents scores was the norm back then, however 2010 was the first time they had done a game with such low score values (in the 3v3 era). The idea was these ârankingâ scores basically made it so it was in your best interest to not break anyone or play complete shutdown defense something they were worried about being common now that you were only sacrificing 1/3 of you alliance to defense not 1/2.
The interesting thing is they brought this back again in 2011. Then would have 2012 with RP kind of how we now it today with the co-op bridge. But 2012 would now utilize your alliances individual metrics as the tie breaker, something we still utilize to this day.
EDIT: Also note back then penalties subtracted from your score not added to your opponents so it was important for the winners to get an unpenalized score or else a lot of them would get 0.
Also in 2010, it was not win/loss sorted, the first sort was on the seeding points:
TEAMS will be seeded in decreasing order by seeding score.
Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores will then be seeded in decreasing order by their
highest cumulative coopertition bonuses
Any TEAMS having identical seeding scores and highest cumulative coopertition bonuses
will then be seeded in decreasing order by cumulative ELEVATED/SUSPENDED points
earned by their ALLIANCES throughout the Qualification Matches.
One more thing to add to the discussion of that particular âhostile 6v0â match in 2010 is that the seeding dynamics were critical. It wasnât just that 1114 would get more ranking points by not trying to win - it was also that the difference in ranking points between 1114 and 111 (who at the time were neck and neck for the top 2 seeds) would remain roughly the same. Because of how game-breaking 469 was that year, it was widely believed that not seeding 1st in Curie would effectively cost you the World Championship. So 1114 could not allow 111 to gain a bunch of seeding points over them.
This is why 1114âs alliance partners actually blocked their own allianceâs goals to prevent balls from entering them - this would prevent 111 from driving up 1114âs score to improve that differential. Itâs very confusing, but very strategic.
Ultimately, while the 2010 ranking system did a pretty great job of ranking the best teams relative to WLT (at least back when events only gave teams 8 qual matchesâŚ), this confusion and perverse incentives are what led to this systemâs abandonment in 2011, and ultimately what led to ranking systems using things such as autonomous points as a tiebreaker rather than opponents score / strength of schedule.
Thatâs how my team ended up ranked third at FLR that year as a rookie with no idea what we were doing, only to be quickly shellacked in the elimination rounds. We even âthrewâ a round by giving all of the balls to opposing alliance (with their permission and working with our alliance partners) and got a world high score at the time - and even though we lost we âwonâ.
Mod Hat:
As long as this thread remains light hearted and in jest, the mod team is fine with it. If it turns into something more sinister or âun-GP,â then we will take action.
We appreciate the flags from concerned CD citizens - however, the existence of this thread in itâs current jovial state isnât breaking rules or decorum.
I am hoping that some team, somewhere, some time, is named Boloney Bots (or similar) so that when this thread comes up again they can be the Wurst Team
This was during a time period when FIRST tried a variety of weird seeding or game rules in successive years to try to promote âcoopertitionâ, most of which were not very well executed or received.
I can say my team was one of the worst at worlds in 2011. I think we score like 2 tubes total the whole season. We made it there with Rookie All-star. Protip, donât build the whole robot out of 1x1 80/20.
I know that this post is a joke, but honestly this is one of the things that I kinda miss from the regional model. Obviously the district system has a much better way of choosing which teams go to worlds, but I remember my own experience in 2018 when my team was in our second year (my first on the team) and we we were not very competitive, but due to a stroke of luck, we were the last pick of the serpentine and won the event alongside Texas torque and jersey voltage. We went to worlds despite seeding super low at both our events, and that worlds had some of my absolute favorite memories Iâve made doing FRC. Getting to see 971âs crazy carbon fiber arm, seeing a robot that had wheels that could change direction (this was mind-blowing as a 14 year old), seeing all the thunder down under koalas, and tons of other really really cool stuff. Our worlds culminated by again being last pick of the first seeded alliance and we had a decent shot at playing on einstein before a heartbreaking 2 point loss to up-a-creek and citrus after we fell off of 3310âs forks.
This ended up being a large tangent, but my point is it makes me really sad to think about the students on teams who maybe arenât able to get up to the level required to make worlds under the district model wont get to experience how incredible worlds is.
Itâs not quite gone, but requires slightly more things to line up. Generally you just have to qualify for DCMP, then get serpentineâd into a solid alliance (probably 1 or 2), and from there youâve got a good shot at going to worlds.
But qualifying for DCMP is slightly more difficult for a weaker team as the district points model rewards consistency - getting last picked into a strong alliance in one of your events and not getting picked at all, combined with seeding poorly in both, is generally not going to cut it to qualify you to DCMP.
Overall the district model does a great job at doing what it was designed for - getting the top ~40% of teams to play a higher stakes district championship, and getting the top ~10% of teams to worlds. Thatâs awesome from a purely competitive standpoint, but aside from a few awards (like RAS and Impact), it makes it nearly impossible for relatively weaker teams to go to worlds. Where again in comparison, a significant number of teams at worlds are relatively weak teams who were second picked to a strong alliance at a regional.
Absolutely nothing against teams who qualified for worlds this way - itâs the way the game works. Any strong alliance is going to do their homework on which if the bots to last pick, youâre not just a random pity pick - you were the strongest or most compatible of the remaining bunch. But it makes me pretty sad as well to know that as more regionals become district events, that chance of fluking into worlds is becoming smaller and smaller.
Apparently hot dog or sausage races are common to several MLB teams including the Arizona Diamondbacks, Cleveland Guardians, Kansas City Royals, and Milwaukee Brewers.
I always think it is interesting when you find out something you thought was local is actually widespread. Like finding out a âhometownâ lawyer has offices across the country when you see their ad on TV while on vacation.
5090 made it to worlds in 2018 through a lottery waitlist pick. Last year was the first time our team ever actually qualified through district points. (And were unable to go since they canceled Detroit)
Yeah Iâm glad the winning backup robots that only play one or two matches in the playoffs doesnât get a free spot to the championship but through a wildcard. Donât want more teams qualifying to the championship than they had planned for. But you knew a team would slip through this way for this year eventually. There hasnât been too many 4 team event winners so far though.
I chose to bring in a backup as a strategy for finals. Too bad you folks died in the match.
Congrats on making it to Champs!
We love providing wildcards!!
If we didnât make the move, the wildcard slot generated would have been lost.
