Rule Changes?

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Lish, Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro, Inc..

Posted on 3/28/99 5:39 PM MST



I have read just about all of the point of views
that people have placed on this website, and I just
feel that maybe it is time to throw my two cents in.

No one is more in favor of having more teams in
the qualification matches than I am. BUT I think
that forming three team alliances only cheapens
the title of National champions even more. Adding
more teams an alliance is not a good solution at all.
Why add teams to an alliance? Why not just add more
alliance teams to the elimination rounds. To be
perfectly honest I am not really in favor of whole
alliance thing any way, but what are you really going
to do about it. The worry that I had with the alliance
partner thing was fear of backroom dealings, throwing
matches,...etc. Extending the teams to a three
alliance team only further complicates things.

I feel that adding more teams( by means of more pairs(2)
of alliances)to the elimination matches is a more viable solution.
Think about the powerhouse tri alliances that could be
formed(EX. Assebet, Bomb Squad,and Beatty) all on one team
, it is just not fair. So what if one of the two robots
breaks down in a match. That is why there are two isn't it.
I can not tell you how many time we were paired with a
machine that didn't move in conn., But we had to deal with it.

So, I am just hopeing that they will extend the field in the elimination
matches and not add a third team to an alliance. Well i've now voiced my
opinion ( which is somthing that I usually do not do
,but I guess i just felt strongly about this topic). Sorry for rambling
and boring all of you.

Good Luck at the Nationals!!
Tom
Team #126
"Bad Larry"

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/28/99 6:14 PM MST


In Reply to: Rule Changes? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:39 PM MST:



>>>>. Adding more teams an alliance is not a good solution at all.
>>>>Why add teams to an alliance? Why not just add more
>>>>alliance teams to the elimination rounds.

That would be much better than this 3 alliance thing, but this solution incorporates 8 more teams without taking anymore time. I=f you add more alliances to the elimination rounds, you will probably have to reduce the already scarce qualifying rounds. So given those parameters, I think it's a darn fine solution. :-Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Lish, Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro, Inc..

Posted on 3/28/99 6:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Time is of the . . posted by Dan on 3/28/99 6:14 PM MST:



Why not start the qualifying matches on thursday afternoon and then run them all day friday. That leaves you with the whole day on saturday for the elimination rounds.

[archiver]

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 7:43 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Time is of the . . posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 6:39 PM MST:



Great solution, but only if you can do it without cutting out practice rounds. Just cuz your team doesn't need 'em, that doesn't mean nobody does! My team has spent the practice rounds every single year getting our robot working! We were lucky to be able to get that over with at a regional this year. But some teams don't. Just think, if we only have 4 QMs shouldn't we at least get to play them with working robots?

Broken robots don't handle too well =)

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 3/28/99 9:14 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Time is of the . . posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 6:39 PM MST:




... if you take lish's suggestion and start thrusday night.. and even if you have to continue into saturday morning.. didn't anyone else notice that their days ended rather early?.. i mean..the competition at the regionals was over by like 4:30, 5.. so what if it extends a little later in florida.. in years past it has.. for the sake of allowing the top 12, 16 to pick as opposed to the top 8.. i wouldn't have a problem with a longer competition..so what if it cuts into the after party.. but i guess that is a decision of the guys working the competition, not use.. but it is a viable idea

[archiver]

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

Posted on 3/29/99 1:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Time shouldn't be a big problem.. posted by colleen on 3/28/99 9:14 PM MST:



I talked to Lori today, she said that it's more likely than not that we'll be having 16 teams picking 2 other teams, this isn't absolutely set in stone yet, so it could still change. If I find out anything for sure, I'll let everyone know..

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

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 3/29/99 8:22 AM MST


In Reply to: Rule Changes? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:39 PM MST:



I am going to repeat what i had said at the begining of this year. When it comes to the elimination matches there should be 16 teams who then pick their partner for the elimination rounds. From there, a single elimination torney until you make it to the final 8 alliances. From there just run it like normal. I feel that having three alliance partners isn't as good as it is cracked up to be. There are other ways around it. Is this setup I propose a viable one? What would be its downfall?
Good Luck to all,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne HS