|Since the dawn of man, martial artists have sought to master fighting styles that seamlessly blend the attributes of strength, power, quickness, grace, and speed. You've heard them all. The Tiger. The Crane. The Mantis. Now witness.......The Nerd. - Travis Hoffman [more]|
|Thread Tools||Rate Thread||Display Modes|
thoughts on the finals
Posted by Pat Bogard at 2/4/2001 5:07 PM EST
Student on team #103, Cybersonics, from Palisades High School and Lutron, Amplifier Research, Lucent Technologies.
While aimlessly surfing the net, a question popped in my head. In the finals is it better to be the first alliance to go and set the standard or is it better to know what you have to beat. And how will FIRST decide which alliance goes first?
So what are everyones thoughts?
You first please...
Posted by Joe Johnson at 2/4/2001 7:28 PM EST
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
In Reply to: thoughts on the finals
Posted by Pat Bogard on 2/4/2001 5:07 PM EST:
I suppose that unless one alliance is easily the better
alliance, going second is a huge advantage.
There is going to be a lot of risk involved in getting
those monster scores many of use think are possible.
If you know what you have to beat you know just how
much risk to put into your score.
But then, FIRST has sort of equalized it because if you
DO go second and beat the first alliance's score, you
have to go first in the second round.
At that point, it will be all or nothing for the
alliance that went first in the first round.
As to which alliance goes first, I think that it
spelled out in the rules: the alliance with the higher
rank goes first in the first round.
As to the Semi-finals at the Nationals, I don't know
how they are going to work it and I don't have the
What would teams think of this proposal (assuming the
rules don't spell it out yet):
Re-rank all the alliances that make it through the
quarter finals (a.k.a. the group champions) based on
their highest score in the quarter finals. Then have
Seed #1 play Seed #4 and Seed #2 play Seed #3. Have
the higher ranked team go first in the semi-finals. In
the Finals, have the alliance that scored highest in
the Semi-Finals go first.
What do you think?
Sounds about right
Posted by Chris Hibner at 2/5/2001 4:34 PM EST
Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
In Reply to: You first please...
Posted by Joe Johnson on 2/4/2001 7:28 PM EST:
: What would teams think of this proposal (assuming the
: rules don't spell it out yet):
: Re-rank all the alliances that make it through the
: quarter finals (a.k.a. the group champions) based on
: their highest score in the quarter finals. Then have
: Seed #1 play Seed #4 and Seed #2 play Seed #3. Have
: the higher ranked team go first in the semi-finals. In
: the Finals, have the alliance that scored highest in
: the Semi-Finals go first.
: What do you think?
: Joe J.
I think this is probably the best way to do it. I'm pretty sure they'll end up doing this.
|Display Modes||Rate This Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Do all three team have to play in finals???||Scott358||Rules/Strategy||8||03-16-2003 10:00 AM|
|getting picked for finals...||archiver||2001||11||06-24-2002 01:55 AM|
|Thoughts on this years competition...||archiver||2001||3||06-24-2002 12:11 AM|
|Are the Semis & Finals worth playing?||archiver||2001||8||06-23-2002 11:15 PM|
|dead robot in the finals?||srawls||Rules/Strategy||2||03-24-2002 01:44 PM|