Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585750)

I decided to work on a 6 alliance elimination schedule. This is probably a crazy idea, but it'll probably work.
(repeat each match, then do tie breakers, like normal eliminations)

To explain this, the Tri-Finals (for lack of a better name) would be the equivalent of the current Quarters. The Semi-Finals is where it gets weird. The winners of each Tri-final go on to do two matches (Technically 4-6, with tiebreakers). If they win both semi-finals, they go onto regular finals, proceeding like normal finals. If they loose one of them, they'll replay the match between the two (again, with second round & tiebreaker). Then that winning alliance goes onto regular finals.

With only six alliances, there's a potential maximum of 27 rounds for eliminations, assuming each round goes to a tiebreaker. There's a minimum of 14, so I could see the wide variety of times to plan for an issue. But it proves that six alliance playoffs are possible.

EDIT: Made a quick flowchart of how this proposed flow would go:

Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1585759)

I am confused how you get your two finalists, can you explain it again?

As I understand each round proceeds normally, there are two matches played, if each match goes to a different alliance than a third is played hopefully generating a winner. The winner of the TF1 round moves on, the winner of the TF2 round moves on and the winner of the TF3 moves on.

I do not understand how you narrow down from the three Tri-final winners to the two finalists.

Edit: The flowchart makes it easier to understand, I would suggest switching the names of SF2 and SF3. How do you even out the fact that TF2 has played twice as many matches as TF1 or TF3 if SF2(3) is not needed?

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585762)

I just did another edit to make it more clear again. The basic idea is that the winners of TF2 play both matches. If they loose both of them, TF1 and TF3 go onto finals. If they loose one, the one they lost against and the winner of the other Tri-Final go onto finals. If the win both, SM3 (or 5, numbering is hard here), is a Tie-Breaker between the winners of TF1 and TF2 to go onto finals with TF2.

Originally Posted by rtfgnow (Post 1585772)

We are way off topic so this is going to be my last post on your proposal.

I suggest you create a table with the following columns:

Independent 1: Outcome of SF1/3
Independent 2: Outcome of SF2/4
Dependent 1: Is SF5/6 played?
Dependent 2: what alliances become finalists
Dependent 3: If D1 is no and D2 includes TF2 (I'm not 100% sure this is possible), how do you make things fair for TF1/3?

Another question: What if TF2 plays hard in matches 1 and 3 but doesn't try (maybe even doesn't field a robot) for matches 2/4?

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1585742)

And then watch Newton get eliminated on Einstein anyways. How different would it really be with 8/50? I'd you think it's that predictable, you're basically assuming 1seeds out of each division. Would the 1 seeds out of 8/50 look that different than 1 and 2 out of 4/100? 2nd and 3rd picks would be weaker, but there's usually a big drop off there anyways.

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1585731)

While it does work well for drive teams and volunteers, MSC two-field style is not going to be good for those in the stands. This is because bleacher seats for two fields will not provide adequate viewing of both fields. The much larger seating capacity of the Deltaplex (22 rows on one side, 36 rows on the other) make seeing both MSC fields easy from most seats. Bleacher seats will likely be 15 rows.

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585750)

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585762)

(Explanation)

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585773)

(Further Explanantion with Examples)

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid (Post 1585776)

(Yet More Explanation)