Changing the Elim. Format...
 

I know that it is very late in the game to change the Elimination Round Format, but it is my considered opinion that FIRST should do it.

After observing 5 weeks of regional elimination rounds, I don't believe that it is in the best interest of FIRST to keep the format as it is.


It is just too icky the way that it ends up.

Essentially, the second match of each elimination round involves a team loosing the match in order to win the round. There are cases where a team rebounds from a first match loss, but almost without exception, this involves strategic errors on the part of the team that won the first match.

I feel very strongly that FIRST should go to one of the following systems (in order of my preference):

1) Scrap the Elimination Points system for a best 2 out of 3 winner format (as was the case last year)

2) Keep the Elination Points, but require a 3rd match if the first 2 matches are not won by the same team.

The advantage of #2 is that it keeps the Elimination Point concept but gives a team 2 shots to overcome a loss in the first round. With the current system, a large score loss in the first match is essentially unbeatable without either the cooperation or stupidity of the team that won the first match. By giving a team two matches to make up the Elimination Point deficit, it puts the pressure back on the teams to play to WIN rather than to play to loose but by a low score.

Anyway, I know that it will probably require an act of god to get such a change implemented for the Championship Event. Even so, I appeal to gods of FIRST for just such a change.

If you have an ear at FIRST who can influence this issue, I encourage you to bend that ear, lobbying them to change the format of the FIRST Elimination Rounds.

For the integrity of the game, for confusion of the viewing public, for the spirit of FIRST that is damaged every time a team looses in order to advance, I believe FIRST should make the tough call, and change the format. *

I am quite strong on this idea -- FIRST, if you are listening, CHANGE THE FORMAT, PLEASE.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Joe J.


*There is precedent for FIRST making a late change of the rules concerning the format of the elimination rounds at the Championships (reference the People Vs. Floppies 1998).

I'm With Ya...
 

Good Post Joe...

I agree 100%. If teams are smart, this format leads to a 1 match final. I say FIRST should revert back to best 2 out of 3. If not, I encourage all the offseason competition organizers to get creative with this games finals.

Good Luck All
Andy Grady

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=Elimina tion
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=Elimina tion

Similar topics. I do agree, but I don't think it should be changed for Houston. It's been done already, and should be finished up. Just bring it up at the team forums so they don't do it next year.

You got my vote
 

Joe,

I completely agree. We got eliminated in the semis at West Michigan when an alliance partner just barely crossed the field barrier and had their robot disabled in the first match. That made the first match basically 2 against 1, so we lost. Of course, we couldn't come back in the 2nd match. If it were best 2 out of 3, we might have had a shot at coming back.

As you said, I highly doubt that they would change it, but I hope they do.

-Chris

I also agree with Mr.Johnson. At BAE in the first match we won however the score was never displayed on the scoreboard. The announcer announced the score as 190 QP's as well as a FIRST volunteer and several members of the audience. However, after the second match which we thought we had won they announced afterwards that we had only gotten 119 and the other alliance won. All of this is on video tape never did we get an explanation or an apology or anything from FIRST. (Insert your phrase on how sorry FIRST provided me with an awesome opportunity here). In the real world challenges are measured in successes and defeats. Its how well you react from both that measures your character and how well your team performs. This years game by having teams throw matches voids that concept. How is a team suppose to complete when the other alliance is not even playing the game!!! I said that the elimination rounds were going to be the second to worst idea ever (remember 4v0 cool right!!!). I think the format should go back to best out of three therefore if you screw up in one match you have a shot in the next two matches. It is so disadvantagous to lose the first match in Elimination rounds its not even funny. In fact you should just pack your bags when you lose the first match. The other team after winning the first match all they have to do is sweep both the scoring zones and then they win. FIRST I hope your listening please prevent an impending disaster and fix the elimination rounds to a best out of three format.

too late?
 

I agree that the elimination points system is not very good, but I think its too late to change.

Ken

Joe,
I agree, it is probably too late, and the best two out of three. It at least gives an opportunity for all three robots on an alliance to play in the finals.

I agree.
 

I agree also. 2 out of 3 is better.

A group of us just finished discussing the same topic
after the J&J Regional finals. Same situation came up
when the losser wins.

A Third Option
 

How about just eliminating the 2X your opponent score? This way we could still just play two matches and the highest total wins. This would force teams to fight for every point on every match. Although, a reduced score could still be an incentive in the second match if you win big in the first match.

It would not be unheard of for FIRST to make a format change in the middle of the year. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.

Eliminatons
 

I totally agree. Best two out of three. Just think back to many of the elimination rounds of the past five weeks and how much, much more exciting the rounds would have been with two out of three!

FIRST If you want to triple the excitement, make this simple change. It won't be to the disadvantage of any team or design.

Bill Beatty

I think FIRST's only argument to changing the format would be that they've already gotten this far through the season. With all the regionals this year, there probably would have been different results at every one of them had there been a simpler, more effective scoring system. I still don't understand how FIRST considers this to be even more 'spectator friendly' when it's this hard for seasoned veterans to sit there and count everything up after each match.

What's happened at the regionals has already happened, whether everyone liked the outcomes or not; regardless, nats would probably be a lot more of a fun, competitive activity if FIRST changed their scoring system. It would not make the game any less fair or less competitive, it would not ruin anyone's strategy... it would be a simple change to everyone's benefit.

I also agree with Mr. Johnson. The current system is very skewed toward the alliance that wins round one, and makes for an unexciting finals. I'd like to see teams actually compete hard for their victories, rather than lose the second round on purpose.

Its too late to change the rules at this point. There are ways to counter this strategy, you just need to think of them. If we start changing rules now we will end up with what we had last year with the tape measure controversy. Everyone knows now that you need to win the first match big. If you think you are going to lose in the first match don't go for the ramp. If you lost in the first match then keep them from descoring in the second. This not a sure way to win. We lost in the second match of the finals after winning the first at Great Lakes and lost on total points. This is still a great game this year.

Joe, I am behind you 100%.

And for all the "We've come this far..." people: I think most of us agree that this Elim scoring system isn't very good (look at the poll results). So, what does it matter if we've already done all the regionals? The point is that we HAVE NOT already done the Nat's, and if the game can be changed slightly (i.e. you have to WIN to WIN) to make it better, then why not do it?

FIRST wants a game that is spectator friendly, so why not actually do something about it? (I think someone already mentioned that if the matches confuse us sometimes, how would "someones grandmother" figure it out?).

It definitely should be changed for Nats.

*crosses fingers*

I completely agree with Joe on this change.

If you make any error in the first round or have a mechanical problem or even if you fight all the way to the end (Like you would in normal matches) it comes back to haunt you, literally the better you do (if you lose) the more it hurts you.

I was right next to Chris Hibner yelling to his alliance partner to get off the ramp since they were going to lose and make it that much harder (50pts) to win the second. It seems like a questionable strategy to descore (Been much discussion here already) but it is your only smart option under the rules that FIRST has set.

Joe, Wouldn't it be people vs floppies 1999? :)

I agree that the current system has some flaws, but I do not believe FIRST would change this late.

I think we're all just going to have to tough it out, and make the best of what we've been given. Everyone should be taking notes for the Team Forums this summer on what they feel should be changed.

Personally, I think the coolest format would be where you play 2 matches, and only your own points are cumulative. (As mentioned by Raul.) It would make things that much more exciting, while still maintaining the 2 match format.

Although, it would erase the interesting dynamic the current system has. We may not all like it, but you must admit, it makes for some pretty interesting strategy.

Besides... this competition isn't really about winning or losing anyway, is it? ;)

Good luck to everybody in Houston.

Go Curie.

Maybe I'm really stupid, but I played to win every match. It never even crossed my mind through all the elimination rounds and the finals. We didn't loose any matches in the elimination rounds or finals either. It would make it more exciting if they changed it and it would give an alliance another chance if they had a glitch the first match.

i agree with my whole heart
 

this was an issue at every regional and i just think it doesnt embody the spirit of FIRST. I admit that my alliance, 930, 16, and 65 at midwest used this strategy to a degree. We won the first match in our quarter and semis. We did win the second matches also, but did zero the score on both sides with respect to bins. We lost our first finals match when 16's robot lost a radio modem connection. 65 put up a good fight but lost match 1. In the second match all that the other alliance had to do was remove bins and sit at the bottom to win. They won with one flipped robot and one without a functioning drive system on their left side. Now that just doesnt seem right. But they played the way the system was made, and they won doing it. I would have done the same in their position. But i think it is quite obvious that this system is wrong and unjust for all teams, and it needs to be changed. I think changing it for nationals is necessary in order to find a true winner. I feel 2 out of 3 is the best choice or if a 2 match finals is mandatory at least remove the 2x the losers score.

I agree with the masses here.... out with the current scoring system.... of course we were down by so much after our first match in the semi's that we were unable to come back, and therefore did not qualify for nat's so we wont be there... guess it doesnt matter much to me anymore one way or the other, but it should be 2 out of 3, it would make the games more exciting, and alliances more important (2nd game would just require some1 who could move the boxes and not much else)

I very much agree that the 2 out of 3 method would be the best way to go for this year, even if it is too late to change the rules. But I have a question... Might it be better for future competitions if the two alliance partners of each of the top 8 teams were to have more than one opportunity in the distinct elimination rounds (ex.: Team A being one of the top 8 teams, and Teams B and C being its alliance partners, so that the alliance of A and B would go at least twice, and the alliance of A and C would do likewise)?

Therefore, there would be at least 4 matches within an elimination round... maybe allowing for a variation of the match-ups and more of an opportunity for B and C (if for any reason either malfunctions) to be repaired and perform to their full capabilities.

Just a thought.

-Lisa
Team 573-Western Michigan Engineering Inspiration Award Winners :)

I voted yes, but looking at the complicated scoring software this year, I highly doubt FIRST will be able to see this thread, look at the voting result, and change the code in 3 days and modify the finals to become best 2 out of 3.

If we had a week between regionals and Championship event, maybe... But I know a few of us who never like making changes to the software with this little time in advance.

I am sure FIRST will change next year back to best 2 out of 3 next year because the team forums will be flooded with that request.

I'm thinking that either choice #1 or #2 would be much better than the way it was at the regionals. Multiple times at the Lone Star Regional, I thought about how at the end of the first match the losing alliance would try to force their way on to the top of the ramp, but in doing so (trying to complete an objective of the game) gave the opposing alliance more points than themselves. Basically you were punishing yourself by trying to score points for your alliance. That doesn't make very much sense. I also did not like that an alliance could only lose one match and lose the whole thing.

If FIRST doesn't want to change the rules of the game too much then they could just change it to option #2. That shouldn't change the outcome of the competition but it would make it a whole lot more exciting and sensible from a spectator standpoint.

At Lone Star we never tried to lose, we tried to intentionally win. The semi and quarterfinal matches we won by pushing bins to our side, protecting our stacks, and then getting both robots on the ramp (actually every match we won, except in finals, our robot was on the ramp) The second match is easy to win if you win the first, if you watch the second semifinal match at Lonestar we let our opponent score 1 point, we cleared their area and kept them off the ramp. In the first finals match we lost by 62 points, both robots failed to make the ramp because of 118 KOH which we pushed off in the last seconds only to continue to roll down the ramp and end up touching several of our boxes. In the second round the other alliance worked to clear our area. With less than a minute we managed to get intangled on top of 704's robot where we were stuck until five seconds left, when we found they had severly damaged our drill motors and we couldn't move. Luckily for us, our alliance and one of the other robots were on top, and a Human Player foul negated their two stack. The score was 35 us to 33 them and we won by 6 points overall. If the human player hadn't of messed up or if their robot hadn't of been on top we would have lost. But everyone has to play the game like this so I think it is fair enough. But I see having 3 matches as a good idea not to mention more fun. Even though coming back after one match when you thought you had lost was a thrill.

Guys,

Get a clue... it is Monday before the Championships at a new location. FIRST is kinda busy.

They are trying to add teams to the mix as I type this.

They are shipping 4 fields from around the nation and get them set up in Reliant Stadium by Wednesday night.

They are trying to make sure that everyone's crate is being delivered to the Astrodome.

They are seeing to it that all 290 teams have pits.

They are starting to deal with all of the VIPs, judges and volunteers that will be converging on Houston by the end of this week.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE SCORING SYSTEM.

Deal with it. The only option we have is to play with the rules that we already know.

Sure, we have realized that the elimination scoring system is not the best... it needs to be changed. BUT NOT NOW. sheesh. For all of us who put on post-season competitions, let's change the scoring system for those competitions (IRI, Battlecry, etc.).

Sometimes you guys worry me. :)

Andy B.

Well said Andy!!!

I think alot of people forget how much work FIRST really does.

Its time to stop whining and start having some fun!!!

Good luck to everyone this week!

Aidan
:)

Game 2 strategy
 

First I want to say that I agree with every person who has posted above. The rule should be changed and I am certain it will not be because it is just too late. That said I want to offer 2 new points to this discussion.

1.) The rule we have is because a large persentage of FIRST teams suggested that they try to make the Elims. more like the qualifying matches. FIRST tried to do that by making the Elims. based on QPs also. It didn't work, but that is why it is the way it is.

2.) I have been involved in the type of matches that Joe is talking about (quarterfinals and semifinals this weekend) and I can assure you that we played every match to win. Did the strategy change from match 1 to match 2? Of course it did. But we never played to lose, we just spent the extra time between autonomous and ramp fighting trying to un-score rather than score. The goal was to win with a small number of points in an effort to reduce risk.

I don't know if other teams had the same strategy or even if this is a big distiction. What do you all think?

MattB
Coach
Team 902 - The Delphi Robohawks

Rock on Baker.

It's too late now, but....
 

... this issue was brought up many times, for over a month now.

I know this because I wrote a thread about the "masochistic strategy", which gives the winner of the first match a significant advantage.

I also suggested that simply changing the elim round points to 1x the losers points, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of intentionally trying to lose the second match.

It is what it is now, and everyone should know be aware of how it works, so you can at least try to do something about it.

See you in Houston!!!

Regards,
Scott358

I agree future yes, now no. This is because I a way changing scoring now would be sort of like totally changing the game; which none of you would like.

i think that changing the elimination rounds only would not change the game all that much, it would just make it like a single qualifying round, play to win. you dont need to change the scoring system or anything, just eliminate QP's for elim's like last year. and what college are you at sensel?

Don't fight it, love the system to death
 

Things maybe aren't perfect but they should stay the same for the Championships.

In my humble opinion...

The best two out of three, while keeping the EP's would be a nightmare. Try and explain to Grandma that you won two of the three matches and still lost because you didn't have enough QP's.

The best two out of three, while eliminating the QP's and you would have a different game in the elimination rounds than you have in the seeding rounds. How many times have we heard at the team forums at the end of each year that the eliminations rounds should be the same game as the seeding rounds.

There are solutions to the problems - using different strategies is the key

Seeding Matches - Big Scores
Don't beat yourselves by using the simple solution

Elimination Matches - Little Scores
Don't beat yourselves .

Re: Don't fight it, love the system to death
 

This thread frustrates me to the point of no end. Why you ask I called this disaster way back on Week 1 thread is called "Impending Disaster" if my memory serves me right. What do you guys tell me suck it up and play the game and you guys loved the rule. Fine first week of competition comes and people start complaining but everyone still says suck it up and play the game. National championship comes everyone wants to change the rule but now you can't because its too late. Don't mind me for saying that I told you so.

i agree with changing it. As the driver, and dont get me wron that im into this competition, i dont have any mentors to tell me to win or lose the match. it sux. change it!!

Score it by hand if you have to but make the change...
 

Andy,

I agree that it will not be easy for FIRST to change this system (especially the scoring program). However, to say that it is not easy is not to say that it should not be done. FIRST should score it by hand if they have to but I believe it is in the best interest of FIRST to make the change.

The Championships are THE showcase for FIRST to media and, perhaps as importantly, the execs who decide to pay the bills at FIRST (or not) based largely on their view of FIRST from the Championship Event.

It is my belief that this will do damage to the image of FIRST with some of the most important supporters that FIRST has. Confusing them and/or giving them a bad image of FIRST is not in FIRST's best interest.

Exciting elimination rounds with teams fighting to win to advance is important for FIRST.

FIRST can change this if they want to. I believe that even at this late date, they should want to.

Joe J.

P.S. As to why I did not push for this earlier, I was willing to give the system a chance, but the more time I gave it, the more I became convinced that the system was damaging to FIRST's long-term interests. At Grand Rapids, I spoke to a number of folks who were saying things like "I've heard that FIRST was considering changing the elims in TX" The more I heard it, the more I thought it was worth the bother trying to convince FIRST of the wisdom of changing, even at this late date... ...so I am trying. Perhaps in vain but with the best of intentions.

P.P.S. To those who say that they have always played to win and that the events are just as exciting as is, all I can say is you were not viewing the same matches as I saw. Certainly at the Great Lakes Regional, at the Midwest Regional and at the Western Michigan Regional, the winners of the first match were not trying to win their second match so much as trying to make sure they could not lose the ROUND by making sure the score of the MATCH was low enough to guarantee advancing (It was clear from the actions of the teams that winning the match was secondary).

FIRST could score the matches by hand if need be: They can multiply and add, can't they?

Mr. Johnson is right on, in my opinion. If there was ever a year that FIRST had to make a strong showing to both the public and the corporate spectators, this is that year. I know that many teams, including mine, are at risk at being cut due to monetary costs.

If corporate execs look at the FIRST finals, and see a team win the first round, and intentionally lose the second, what would they think?

Why would they be sinking tens of thousands of dollars on FIRST, in order to watch the robot with their corporate logo lose a match on purpose on NASA TV? That would not leave a good impression in my mind, if I was in charge of justifying a FIRST team in a corporations budget.

I strongly urge FIRST to make the change, for the sake of all teams.

Mr. Johnson has it right!

If FIRST wants the big media and big sponsor attention, they need to go to 2-out-of 3 with total points used as a tie-breaker. With the present scoring approach, a first match score 90 to 89 makes the second match totally anti-climatic. The winner of the nail-biter has a totally insurmountable lead and can sit idle (or just knock over a stack) and walk away with the trophy. Not at all compelling to spectators that would expect the next match to be even more exciting. Not viewer friendly!!

If FIRST doesn't implement 2-out-of-3 in the National finals , they're going to confuse the same viewership that could help push FIRST into every school in the country almost overnight.

My thoughts:


FIRST made these rules, they survived the regionals with these rules and they will be the rules at The Championship. These are the rules people...deal with them! Save your complaints and let the FIRST people hear them in the summer at the FIRST forums.

I beg to differ, in the finals at J&J the last match was extremly close, & at Cheasap
 

I have to agree with Big Mike. Having been one of the finalist teams, 222, 87, and 103 never gave up. We came really close to winning the competition even though we did not win the first round. It made for an excitiing finals. If teams come to play the game the right way and dont' shut themselves out, the game gets very exciting. Great job on Rutgers to the winners!!!!!

Elimination Rebuttal
 

Joe, Andy and All

I guarantee that FIRST has been thinking about the elimination scoring since early in the regionals, so it is not a new idea that they might just be now considering. I am positive that they would have no trouble making such a change if they decided that it is the best to do so. Also, I do not believe that it would have been fair to make the change part way through the regionals and have teams qualify under different rules, but now that the regionals are over, I don't think anyone would be penalized or helped by a rule change for the Nationals.

As for whinning/complannig, I am doing neither. If FIRST decides to leave it alone, we will be there and compete to the best of our ability. I am only suggesting that this change be made, because I truly believe that it would be in the best interest of the competition to do so.

Regards and best of luck to all

Bill

First, I'd like to post a little bit of background for those people who don't remember the reference to 1999 in Dr. Joe's post.

1999 was the first year of alliances. Because of that, there were many bugs to be worked out. The two notable changes where that part way through the regionals, FIRST ruled that any team that declined an alliance could not be picked. This was in response to several incidents at various regionals.

The other change they made was done at the Great Lakes Regional (the last weekend of regionals). Originally, the finals were only 2 team alliances, just like the qualification rounds. At GLR, there were alliances of 3 for the elims, just like there are today. This was in response to teams having their partners break and being screwed.

In both cases, those rules have stayed in some form or another to this day. This shows that they were (for the most part) good rules.

More importantly, lets look at who was affected by these rules. The no rejections rule affected every team that had rejected a higher seed. In some cases, this was done because of a broken robot, in other cases, because of a deal with a lower seed. If your robot was broken, nothing changed, because in either case, you wouldn't be able to compete. Now, in the case of the deals with lower seeds (dare I say it, "collusion") it helped the higher seed that would have previously been rejected. It hurt both the team that would have rejected them, as well as the lower seeded team that they made the deal with. However, FIRST decided that it was worth it, in order to give the advantage to the higher seeded teams, otherwise, seeding high wouldn't mean anything if you also didn't make deals with the other teams. In that case, I believe that it was a net positive, but definitely not overwhelming.

For the other change, it was positive for everyone involved. It allowed more teams to compete in the finals, and allowed for more competitive finals. The only teams that it hurt are those who's opponents broke. Since that was a fairly random occurrence, the same team that could be helped at one even could have been hurt at the next event, so it really didn't affect one team (or a subset of teams). Remember that for later.

The other time that FIRST made a change to the eliminations during the middle of the season was 2001. That was the first year of divisions at nationals. Originally, there were going to be 4 alliances in the eliminations per division. This would have meant that each division was larger then the largest regional, but had half as many teams move on. Sometime at nationals that year (I can't remember which day), FIRST announced that alliances would be in the eliminations. Unlike the two rule changes from 1999, this was done at nationals. As far as teams that this hurt, it's really hard to identify. The only real argument that I heard was that helped an utterly dominant team (which Beatty was that year). With 8 alliances choosing, it was much harder to build a "super-alliance" that was needed to beat the dominant team. So, for 99% of teams, if was a definite plus.

All that, and I'm only about to begin on my thoughts for this year.

First off, I really do not like this year's elimination system. I think it leaves too much to chance (winning the first match) and then executing a boring strategy (descoring). I also think that it does not encourage the best teams to win. At the LI regional, I thought that the 5 best robots were (in no particular order) 358, 271, 353, 173, and 329 by far. 2 of those robots were in the #1 alliance, and the others were alliances #2, 3, and 5. Only the 5th alliance advanced past the first round, and they lost in the semis. At the Cleveland regional, I thought that the alliance of 47, 33, and 191 was the best and most deep. They also lost in the quarterfinals. At at least 2 regionals, the #5-8 seeds have all advanced. I believe that the #8 alliances have won at least as many regionals as #1 seeds. Some people (including a FIRST staff member that I talked to) have argued that this shows parity among the alliances, but I don't think so. Rather, I think it shows an elimination system that is severely flawed.

Comparing this situation to previous, similar situations, I would say that changing the scoring system, while not good, isn't a problem, because it had to be modified in both 1999 and 2001 days before nationals. Granted, the scoring system this year has been completely rewritten, so I don't know if it is easier or harder to modify, but there is at least precedent for it. I also know that the scoring program(s) have been updated before each regional, so modifying it before nationals isn't unheard of.

In all cases where FIRST has changed an eliminations rule in the middle of the competitions, it has been in the first year of the thing they changed. It was the first year of alliances in 1999 when they added teams and dropped rejections. It was the first year of divisions when FIRST added the extra round of matches to the eliminations for each division. In that case, there is precedent for a change to this year's elimination system, since this is the first year that it has been tried.

The last criteria that I use is the teams affected. The rules for the eliminations have not changed since the rules were release. There are some teams that have used these very successfully. It is these teams that would be very strongly hurt if the elimination rules were changed. On the other hand, a new system would help teams who have not been able to find a winning strategy for this year's game and now have a second chance.

Personally, I don't think this is a fair trade. There are enough teams that benefit from the current system that it makes it very unfair to change it. Unlike the other situations (in past years), this hurts many teams, that are following the rules and acting graciously and professionally. For this reason, no matter how much I dislike the current system, I do not think that FIRST should change it.

I do think that teams should continue talking about whether the system should be changed, identifying flaws with the current system, and dreaming up ideas for new systems. I was very interested to read everyone's reply in this thread.

I hope to see some alternate elimination formats at off-season competitions :)

PS. Anyone interested in reading more about 1999 and 2001 should search the 1999 forum for either alliances or rejections, and the 2001 forum for divisions

My hope is that FIRST has been thinking about changing the format for some time, and that the people at FileMaker have been helping them to do so. After all FileMaker is known for being flexible and easy to use, versus other such programs. So here is a challenge. Let's see if you can pull it off in time.

I am very keen to change the format, because I want to know which is the best robot. Sure some luck is always built into the game, but part of what I come to the events for is to see whose solution is the best, and to learn from that solution.

This year, there is too much luck. If a team wins 70 to 65 in the first match, they have not shown that their solution is clearly the best.

True, after 2002, FIRST teams wanted scoring consistency between qualifying and elimination rounds. Well we were wrong as far as this year's game is concerned. I am sorry. Please don't beat me over the head for my error.

FIRST, please change the scoring to best 2 out of 3 and restore the excitement of previous years. I don't want to sit threw any more matches where the leader is deliberately not scoring, turning it into a non event.

(If you need help with the FileMaker stuff, let me know.)

My vote - change it!
 

Thank you Joe!

The elimination scoring system was a mistake from the beginning and an unfortunate blight on what is otherwise an excellent game. Nobody's robot robot is specifically taylored to this elimination scoring system and the change would not force any team to restrategize. Everyone has already figured out how they want to win the first match. Now they just have to try to do that twice. Earlier polls showed that over 80% of the participants didn't like this scoring. FIRST CHANGE IT.........PLEASE!


James
Engineer/Coach
Team 180 SPAM

Todd....
 

... You're vision in seeing this issue so early on was right on the mark, and you should be applauded for this. Your term "Impending disaster" is still a quite a bit overstated, and may have caused many (including myself) to think you were "the boy crying wolf".

Since it has not yet changed, and probably won't, the real trick is to understand the rules, and play accordingly.

Although this rule can cause teams to take points "off the table", which isn't that exciting to watch (which is a concern for FIRST), especially when 2 robots are just sitting there in the end, it is what it is.

Let's play bin!!! (sorry for the lame attempt a comedy, but baseball season did just start).

Regards,
Scott358

Who needs to change the scoring system, just get rid of a scoring system for elims. and have the refs tally up the scores post the results on the board (w/ qp's if it cant be changed, just ignore them) and keep track of who wins two matches first.

Good points...
 

As to Joe Ross, you make some excellent points, yet I disagree with you on the end result. I think that mostly this comes down to people of good will agreeing to disagree.

I know that there are teams (specifically, teams good at descoring) that are disadvantaged by a change, but evenso, I believe that this is worth the change (eventhough our team can descore better than average when put to it).

As to Bill Beatty, as usual, we agree more often than we disagree.

Finally, I too am not whinning or complaining. Our team will be just fine regardless of this change -- In fact, I truly believe that our chances of advancing are just as good or better with the rules the way they are.

My main point is that FIRST that is damaged by the rules as they are. I have worked long and hard over the past 8 years to help advance FIRST, I believe I have some standing to say this or that change should be considered. If the outcome is to keep the rules as is, so be it. Yet, I thought it was worth a shot at pushing for the change.

Joe J.

I think we are wasing our breath trying to debate this. FIRST knows we don't like this format (or most of us do anyway). They'll fix it for next year and throw out another surprise for us to complain about on the forums. ;)