why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

i've wondered about this for the past couple of years. there's a champion, and a finalist but the two semifinalists that lose seem to share a joint 3rd place.

why doesn't FIRST use the dead time during the guaranteed 10 minutes in between the finals matches to determine a 3rd place alliance?

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Interesting idea. They could make it a single game rather than best of three to have a 3rd place winner with practically no impact on the event length.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I think the way teams determine the "3rd Place Winner" is whichever of the two semifinalist alliances was a higher seed.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I'd personally like to see something like that. Maybe the third place teams gets some consolation medals? I'd definitely think it would be awesome to see at the regional level.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Maybe it is just the teams I talk to but usually we say 3rd place is who ever lost to the Winning Alliance in the Semi-finals

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

That alliance is usually a lower seed than the alliance that lost in the other side of the bracket. I do not see how this is a good indicator of which alliance is better.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I think that time might play a big factor in this, especially at a championship. Matches often run late, and, by running another set of matches, you are tightening down the time constraints even more. I would personally like to see a third place match, but the time constraints are already tight.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Well, there is usually a lot of time between the semifinals and the finals. It could be run just like an ordinary match in this case, or run between finals matches.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

While it might make it easier to explain to outsiders how well you did, I don't really see any other benefits to determining a third place. We were semifinalists in LA...being called '3rd place' would have made no difference.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

If there is - and there doesn't have to be - there would be just as much time between the semifinals and the 3rd place match.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

That time is because you are guaranteed at least five minutes between matches. Adding a third place match will add 10 minutes to the day and that is only if you play one match. Doing best 2 out of 3 could add up to a half hour and that is a lot of time to determine something that really doesn't matter.
Nick

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

We always refer to the the allaince that went to 3 matches as 3rd place if the other side went 2 and out for ease of explaining it.
I don't think there's really a bennefit to doing it officially.
The time cycle for most games in the past has usally made it so clean up and breakdown of the fields pushes it close to when we are supposed to be out of venues. I think this would just drag out the wait for awards.

Also look at most major sports, football, baseball, basketball (NCAA tournament too) and hockey where when you're out that's it. There is no need to find a 3rd place because all that the people want to see is the champion.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Why does it matter who came in third? There is no award for third or forth or anything other than 1st and runner up.

Until this thread I have never even heard it brought up?

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I had been wondering why this hasn't been established yet. Teams should get to play in as many matches as possible considering the investment required to register for an event. I don't think anyone would get upset if they used a little more than the breaks between the finals to play.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

While I don't think a 3rd place is necessary, I think it would be fun to have another set of matches to watch at competition. I don't think any students have a problem spending a little more time at FRC competitions, and speaking from experience as perpetual semifinalists, being able to have that one last shot at an award would be really nice.

Overall, is it necessary? No. Practical? Maybe not. Would it be fun for all involved and a great experience for one more team per regional? Yes, yes it would.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

For the same reason that NCAA basketball doesn't do a "third" place game anymore in the Final Four. What is the point?
There really isn't time and it would take away from the excitement of the Finals to have other robots that have already lost competing.

That time belongs to the finalists...

I have never understood the fascination with knowing who came in third and fourth.... what's next ...play offs for 5th and sixth... and 7th and 8th?

The system is pretty good just the way it is... you are either winner, finalist, semifinalist or quarterfinalist....

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

This would be interesting. Even if you just fit it in between the first and second match of the finals it'd give those teams an extra couple minutes between for things too

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I don't see a point I guess. Consolation matches really aren't fun, do nothing for morale, and would just give a team a title they probably don't want. Who would want to play a consolation match?

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Everyone wants to play more matches. For the price in time and money teams pay, they really should get to play more matches. The solution is far more likely to be found in something like the district system than in making everyone stay longer at an event and get even more tired watching a set of consolation matches between two alliances whose members have already played more matches than most other teams at the event.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Events length is limited for more than just student willingness; volunteers and venues themselves are on a time clock. Extra time is extra money: facilities fees, overtime, etc. The work is far from over when most teams clear out: field breakdown, equipment removal, venue cleanup all take time. A couple minutes may not be a big issue in most venues, but all volunteers and managers are acutely aware that hours are made of minutes.

In other words, if there's a real case to be made for taking that extra step--as opposed to another one, several, or none--advocates need to fully understand the resources is requires and the stakeholders it affects. We're all here for the students, but there's more that just that for fallout.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I think this is a great idea. If it would add more time to the overall length of the event, then maybe not so much, but were just sitting around for 10 minutes anyway in between finals so why not? Just add a 'bronze' medal to the award ceremony, or even if its just for funsies I'd enjoy it.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I personally would rather see something like "best of the rookies" or something similar to fill time if time filling is the desire. playing for third feel like playing for last (at least to me).

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Don't the Rookie Inspiration, Highest Rookie Seed, and Rookie All-Star awards settle this?

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

hence the line "or something similar". "Best of the rookies" was simply first thing that came to mind. on a side note: remind the rookies to stay till the end or risk not getting the awards/recognition they earned.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

I understand teams want more play but when I am volunteering come Saturday afternoon I'm pretty beat and ready to be done.

You add even more matches and you might have a rebellion on your hands.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Or just less volunteers :(

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Not after my team just lost.

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Quoted for truth

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

Apparently winning a Bronze medal at the Olympics is no fun and does nothing for morale? Yeah... but that's just those loser Olympians who want to play consolation matches, eh?

I think there are several practical reasons already mentioned why a third place match isn't required in the FRC format, but irrelevance isn't one of them. In reality it would probably be a pretty fun match to watch, and if we'd been playing a third/fourth final for the past decade or so and someone suggested getting rid of it, there would probably be a huge outcry.

So although I don't see things changing, I'm delighted that there are still people thinking and asking questions that challenge what we do and how we do it.

Jason

Re: why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?
 

i just think that a 3rd place match would be a better time killer than the chicken dance and cotton eye joe during the "cooldown" period between finals matches.