![]() |
Team update 16
I found it on the website
http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob...pdate%2016.pdf |
Re: Team update 16
Five points to winning alliance!
|
Re: Team update 16
Wow...big update
+5 points for winning a match now is 6 vs 0 still worth it??? Also, non incidental 3" violations will not be penalized assuming they are corrected. Way to step up GDC. |
Re: Team update 16
Interesting that they changed G46 to only penalize robots if the incidents are incidental and not 100% on purpose. Will definitely reduce penalties, but will call into question as to who's doing it on purpose and who just happened to run over it that round.
|
Re: Team update 16
Thank you, GDC. Thank you very much.
It's a pity this wasn't around for week 1 (especially in Bayou, given the change to no longer allow non-inspected teams to get seeding points), but at least it will hopefully be much better moving forward. |
Re: Team update 16
Wow that is a huge change, should help eliminate a losing alliance doing better than a winning alliance
|
Re: Team update 16
Woohoo an incentive to win matches!!!
|
Re: Team update 16
Phew, now my robot isn't worthless until the elims. :)
A really simple fix, I must say. Now teams will have to be honest with themselves if they think they're going to lose halfway through (score for winner, lower risk, low reward) or if they should push for a comeback (higher risk, MASSIVE reward). I love it. It's like the GDC typed up a few hundred words and fixed everything anyone ever had any trouble with :) |
Re: Team update 16
Thank you so much GDC!:D
|
Re: Team update 16
Major props to the GDC for this update.
I was in the camp that saw no problem with 6v0 (I wouldn't go quite as far as to call myself an advocate of the tactic). With this update the GDC has clearly expressed that the intent of the seeding system which I will be recommending that my team respect, even in circumstances where 6v0 may still be advantageous for maximum seeding points. Adding provisions for not penalizing incidental ball intrusion, and making the G30 yellow card optional are also great fixes to issues that seemed to crop up as the game was played for the first time. |
Re: Team update 16
Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?
ETA: It's a good change, but the timing is obviously frustrating. |
Re: Team update 16
*spit take*
The GDC has changed the seeding formula in the middle of the competition season? I think this is unprecedented. Perhaps the fact that a team at Bayou failed to field a robot for all of Quals and ended up a pick alliance persuaded them. That likely also inspired the not inspected modification, which really only makes sense. At any rate, kudos to them for acting boldly to remedy what was a rather poor ranking system in desperate need of a fix. I propose that all we hold all further criticisms of the ranking system to the end of the season in recognition of this olive branch from the GDC. Furthermore, I think we should all support this change of rules by the GDC instead of complaining of the unfairness to Week 1 teams. Better that they've acted quickly and decisively now than that they force us all to deal with the original system on a matter of principle. |
Re: Team update 16
Well, Friday might not be so painful after all.
|
Re: Team update 16
Thank goodness! However I'm still concerned with FIRST's dislike of high scoring matches. After all, what's wrong with a good robot beating a bad robot?
|
Re: Team update 16
Well I would have liked this a week ago...and a bonus for winning with less than a full alliance would have been nice too
|
Re: Team update 16
Wow, this is a huge update. This really changes the game.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
"Good robots" vs "good robots" makes for a good show, no matter which side you're on. |
Re: Team update 16
I think this has been one of the best updates I have ever seem :)
Thank you GDC!!! This will help out all of the teams tremendously!!! |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Thank you, members of the GDC.
Jane |
Re: Team update 16
Dear GDC,
Thank You |
Re: Team update 16
Huzzah!
I'd like to propose that we make Preseason events official FIRST events, for the sole purpose for FIRST, teams, the GDC to evaluate the game and it's rules so that Week 1 Regional Competitions will no longer carry the stigma. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Definitely a good question, given the massive problems with Week 1 events this year and previous years. It seems like there's little incentive to attend them unless you have no other option and it's very unfair to the teams forced to attend these events. Definitely something for discussion in the off-season. Off the top of my head, some possible solutions are: 1. Reduced entry fee for week 1 events. Takes the sting out of potential problems. 2. Drastically reduced number of week 1 events (one?) so FIRST can throw all available talent at them to help them run smoothly. 3. Full-on official scrimmages on official fields in an official tournament fashion. Assuming you can find the teams to make it happen. Or some combination of these three. But at this point it's looking more and more like something needs to be done to address the quality of week 1 events, or you're going to see an exodus of savvy teams from these events. |
Re: Team update 16
namaste ... and thanks for listening ...
really looking forward to playing the game this way in a few weeks :) |
Re: Team update 16
Two thumbs up for the GDC.
|
Re: Team update 16
Now I feel like I can have spectators show up and actually understand what is going on.
Thanks GDC, thats a really logical, upfront decision. |
Re: Team update 16
I personally am not a fan of the changes.... but i guess we have to live with it.
This is going to be a VERY intresting weekend in FIRST. btw: has the GDC ever changed the scoring for a game once the competition has started? or is this a first? |
Re: Team update 16
The <G46> change is as exciting as the section 9 change.
Should lead to much fewer penalties therefor higher scores and even higher coopertition bonus. Even more reason to play to win! |
Re: Team update 16
I have to mirror everyone else's statements and thank the GDC for this update. Playing the system will not be attractive anymore and can now focus on playing to win for those extra 5 points. This definitely changes the way the game will be played.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Here's a task for a student with some free time:
Take last weekends match results (from TBA/twitter/wherever), and recalculate the rankings incorporating this new bonus. This is NOT to see what teams would have been ranked higher/lower, but rather to see how (15 * num matches) points injected into the total seeding points pool can affect the overall rankings. |
Re: Team update 16
I'm not as convinced as others that this will elimnate the 6v0 or 3v0 stradigies... However it is a serious step in the right direction. Personally, this is alot better than what I was expecting which was ether a penalty for a own goal or those goals not being counted (or something to that effect).
I am surprised with a +5 bonus for winning (along with the 2x multiplier), and having the losing alliance keeping the winners score. Clearly the GDC must be either mostly happy with the results or don't want to shake things up to much. Thank you GDC for listening and making your fans happy. :) |
Re: Team update 16
with the new +5 to the winning alliance this should make things much better and much more understandable :)
|
Re: Team update 16
Thank you, thank you, thank you, GDC, for these changes. It's a wonderful day in the world of FIRST.
|
Re: Team update 16
Best. Team. Update. Ever.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
EDIT: BTW, gdc nice revision on the rules |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I guess the 5 points is an ok rule, I guess... |
Re: Team update 16
Thank you GDC. This (the +5 for a win) is a major change; I can't remember anything similar in the last 6 years. There is no comparison to earlier rules changes like no pre-match stacking and no-you-cant-yes-you-can have bandsaws.
Given that average match scores on Friday were less than 5 points, the difference is a significant game-changer. |
Re: Team update 16
well first off, thank you GDC for fixing these two problems with the game that i saw last weekend. i think that a lot of matches were shutouts, or even 0-0, because of the three inch rule, enforced even if a team was pushed onto a ball (or flipped onto one, as happened a few times). so that fix is great, as is the other, as our team would probably have finished much higher, as a great deal of our matches were shutouts, so a 7-2 record placed us 19th. kinda annoying to change the rule after week 1, as has been said, but at least now everyone else gets to play the game as it should have been. so good luck to everyone else for the rest of the season :)
|
Re: Team update 16
The coach is me likes this update very much. It brings back the strategy to both alliances. If you are willing to gamble either way, you can.
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Thank you GDC.
You have managed to fix so much with one simple update. Teams now can see the advantages of playing 3v3 to WIN (while close to maximize points) and not 6v0 for just ranking. Also thank you for addressing the accidental 3" incursion penalties. This will help EVERYONE after watching how many teams were receiving these penalties (accidentally or due to negligence in design). Side note: This will effectively end most 6v0 matches, but I bet we see one or two depending on what teams we see playing. |
Re: Team update 16
Thank you, Game Design Committee. :)
When something is not quite working as designed, the right move is to tweak it. I think these changes will, by this time next week, be seen as well-judged tweaks to a system that was nearly right to begin with. For the record, my team was at a Week 1 event. And I was volunteering at a different Week 1 event. For several years I advocated within my regional planning committee to hold our event during Week 1. In spite of, and even because of, the challenges that FIRST encounters year after year I still say, "Week 1 this year, Week 1 next year, Week 1 forever!" |
Re: Team update 16
Thanks GDC, I love being a guinea pig.
//walks away frustrated// |
Re: Team update 16
Thank you GDC.
This is a great update. Now I feel as though playing the match to win is obviously in the best interest of the teams and not much iffy ground is left inbetween. That said, the coopertition has not been eliminated so you still want high scores coopertively. So the intent of the cooperation is intact, but now winning is definitely a benefit as opposed to the 6v0. People may complain about this being late, but I appreciate the fact that they found a problem and fixed it. Better now than never. |
Re: Team update 16
There are three situations where the "6v0" situation arises:
1. The winning alliance in a blowout decides to increase the loser's score near the end of a match to increase their own coopertition bonus. 2. The losing alliance realizes they have no chance of winning (perhaps before the match even starts) and increases the loser's score in order to increase their seeding points and not waste goals increasing their opponent's coopertition bonus. 3. In a potentially close match one or both alliances decide playing against each other is too risky and decide all balls should be scored into one alliance's goal. This update decreases the incentive for scenario 3, but does nothing to scenarios 1 and 2. |
Re: Team update 16
Awesome! With Chesapeake coming up in 36 hours - all I can say is "Lock and Load!" :D
I can't wait! Thank you GDC! You are my heroes! |
Re: Team update 16
Well... lets see how good my math and logic is.
A +5 bonus is basically a kin to a 2 goals for Coopertition points, so things will start getting weird for blow outs (ie 3 goal lead or more). Basically at that turning point, the losing team will want to score for the winning team and the winning team will want to start scoring for the losing team. I did some calcs in Excel and at the FLR, 37% of teams won with a lead of 3 or more on Friday Afternoon. Also the average goals was 2.8 to 2.3 for the Red vs Blue Alliance on Friday Afternoon. However, the average qual points with the new system is 7.5 to 7.1 on Friday Afternoon. The average qual point from ties was 5 on Friday afternoon over the course of 9 matchs which is 18% of matches. I did some fuzzy logic and determined that there were 5 "6v0 matches" during Friday (ie scored 5 goals or more against a team with a score of zero) in which the average qual points is also 7.6 (without a newly defined win bonus). For the record, yes this means my team (2053) was the benificiary of a 6v0 in match 50 and I never realized it. I *think* this will produced the desired results that the GDC and the rest of us is looking for, but it will be hard to say until we see in action. Even just the Psycological effects of winning and getting bonus points for it will have a huge effect on game play. All in all, it looks promising. :) |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
This I think my favorite team update in as long as I have been involved in FIRST. And I would like to applaud the powers that be for making such an important change even though week 1 has already happened.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
But Seriously, hundreds of teams and thousands of students played, including my team and me, and I can say that the system sucks, but I'm happy that going forward, the system is better. I would hate to have to attend our second regional, and even championships, with the bad system. |
Re: Team update 16
It would be interesting if some of you number crunchers out there would "replay" the week 1 regionals and see how the final ranking results would have been different with this change.
|
Re: Team update 16
Thanks, GDC for putting competition back into it's place in Breakaway!
The 5-point incentive for winning will likely kill the 6v0 travesty of the game. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
This seems like a goodly amount of GDC-brand grease to apply to the squeaky wheel. |
Re: Team update 16
In my opinion, the update was both good and bad.
In one hand, it was great to see the GDC noticed that their system had a major flaw. In the other hand, the best time to have put out this update was before the "official" regionals start. My team played in a week 1 regional and was a subject to every change in the update. We were the first team to get a yellow card from G46 (match #1 of FLR), we played 6v0 matches (match 58 and 63), and we got a yellow card which turned to a red card for G30 (early Friday). Interesting how every change in this update was a little reflect of what 3181 did on the playing field. (Maybe the update should be changed to Update #3181 :p) It is a horrible thing that teams pay in full for the local regional and even away regionals on week 1 and the system changes drastically after the fact. I have no problem with decreasing the amount of week 1 regionals or decrease the amount of registration or have more official week 0 events to work everything out. I will not walk away from FIRST from this point, I truly believe in this program and I will further mentor teams in my area that need help. I have gone through this system and I love it. There just needs to be some changes. |
Re: Team update 16
Thanks GDC.
It's a shame the week 1 regionals went the way they did... but better late than never I suppose. On to week 2! (and on to different concerns with the ranking system?... I hope not) |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I was a disgruntled week 1 complainer, but I commend them for listening to the community and fixing it so quickly. My enthusiasm is restored. |
Re: Team update 16
I question why we keep attending a week 1 regional.
This is barely a thank you to the GDC. |
Re: Team update 16
Wish FLR wasn't week 1 but im glad GDC has found a solution! Week 1 participants were more or less the ginuea pigs for the trial, but i'm glad all the other weeks will be better...hopefully! =P Thanks!
|
Re: Team update 16
Thanks GDC. I understand the intent of the new seeding system, and sometimes even the best of intentions lead to unexpected consequences.
Madison, iirc, you have an FTC team going to Atlanta too right? We'll see ya down there (FTC1885). I'm just glad I won't miss the conferences this year. |
Re: Team update 16
I want to commend the GDC, because frankly they were going to upset people regardless of how they acted.
If they let things continue the way they had been going, we would have gone through 5 weeks of regionals, and the Championship with people outraged at the seeding system, and way the rankings were ending up. (The Bayou regional is a good testament to why they had to change it) On the other hand, if they do change it (as they have) yes, the people playing in the week 1 regionals kind of got screwed, but they did the greatest good for the greatest number. This way at least the final 4 weeks of regionals can be played with how the game should be played. Would it have been ideal to have this update before regionals? Yes, but in some of the scrimmages I saw, robots were struggling to move let alone score. So there was no way to really know how things would play out. So let's give them credit, they saw an issue, made a tough decision as to whether to fix it or ride out the storm, and did what they felt was in the program's best interest. In my opinion, it should make the final weeks a bit more entertaining. |
Re: Team update 16
I'm also one of the people who saw no object with the 6v0 method. I wouldn't say that I liked it, but I was okay with it as a valid strategy.
Now, I don't have to worry about that! No more scoring on your opponent in order to get double seeding points, either. This will bring it so much closer to the wins/losses systems we've had in the past. I can't wait to see how this turns out! |
Re: Team update 16
Week one is a great time to compete. First of all, it allows more creativity in playing the game because nobody has seen it played before or played it themselves. This means that there are no prior strategies that have been known to work, nobody has had extra time to perfect their robot, and that everything is equal. Think about last year, how many teams in week 5 converted to dumpers rather quickly at the competition? They didn't do this in week 1 because nobody knew at first dumpers would do better. In 2007, did people know how to defend around the rack very well at first? No, they learned it from studying matches and experience.
Also, to teams asking for an incentive to choose week 1...the above is that incentive. It's a pretty big one in my opinion. Sure week 1 has drawbacks, but it comes out about fair with the rest in most years. |
Re: Team update 16
MUCHO RESPECT GDC!!! BRAVO!!! That's how to demonstrate good practices. I think in addition to this perhaps next season 2010 week 1 teams could elect to get a break on registration fees perhaps. This changed my whole attitude about Florida. I was almost dreading it....
|
Re: Team update 16
Any thoughts on the amount of the added seed points? Why +5 and not +6 or +10? Seems like some speed limit traffic signs I've seen, namely, can't shake the possibility of arbitrariness.
|
Re: Team update 16
All good comments.
I like 2 things best. #1, it shows a willingness to change things, even major things, mid stream if it is sufficiently important. Good for the GDC. #2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win. I am very happy. Joe J. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Jane |
Re: Team update 16
This is a blessing for which we thank the GDC and can finally say forget 6v0!
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Well bummer.
Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules... :D |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I'd throw ours, if we could go to IRI! |
Re: Team update 16
Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance. Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance. Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
This update prevents pre arranging a match to have one winner and one loser, since the winner gets 5 more points. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Heck, we designed and redesigned our system to allow plenty of space to go over the bump, but keep out balls and got ourselves going over a ball we couldn't seefrom the playerstation once or twice as we tried going over the Bumps. Less Penalties (especailly in this game) I see as a very good thing. |
Re: Team update 16
This is a huge update. Changes a lot and all for the better. It's just a shame our regional is over. I'm looking more forward to Championship now. Happy with these changes! Go GDC!
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match. Sure this gives you more incentive to win (in qualification matches) . but wasn't that already a goal? (coopertition bonus, moves you to the top of the pack easier than a 6v0) |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Now the two goals have a lot more in common with each other than they did a week ago. Jason |
Re: Team update 16
This changes nothing for our team.
We played to win every match last week and for the most part, that's how the SD regional was played. In the end it worked out for the best. Good luck in week 2 everyone!!!! |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Succinctly, if there's no difference between a 16-0 blowout and a 16-16 tie, something's probably wrong with your system. The post #16 system removes this oddity and creates a system where winning is actually rewarded in all circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between the two seeding systems. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Thanks GDC. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
It's great what the GDC has done with G46 and the principle of the 5 point bonus, but the process in which they have enforced the rule change. This change is totally unfair to teams who participated in Week 1 events. In a ideal world the GDC would have announced this change, but would not implement it until the Championship Event. That would give people a even playing field during their respective Regional competitions. Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Sorry Week 1. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH? I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny |
Re: Team update 16
did any one notice this?
In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER, I think dammed is ment to be jamed. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
Although I made it clear in my "don't count points scored for the opposition" poll/thread that I do not like the concept of scoring on your opponents for any reason, because it doesn't really serve any inspirational point, and although I feel teams could still "cooperte" in other, better ways on the field if opposing goal scoring were eliminated, I believe Dean/FIRST feels that this practice is part of their "coopertition" model, and no amount of reasoning will get them to alter that viewpoint. Therefore, all the possibilities you mentioned are definitely still in play. Here's my question - WWPCD? (you figure it out :p) in response to this rule change? I think I know, but I'll wait for the answer from the horse's mouth. Most people abhor the notion of pre-match collusion - the *only* *true* 6v0 situation. Of all the scoring in opponent goals strategies - the 5 point bonus will serve as greatest incentive not to do that, since you have the entire match in front of you and anything can happen. I believe this rule change will definitely sway more optimistic folks to pursue victory. However, for pessimist/realist types who know when they're up against a stacked alliance or paired with less than optimal partners, I don't think the 5 points will mean much - if anything, the alliance will wait a bit longer before deciding the hope of winning the match is lost and switching to "lockdown mode". |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
|
Re: Team update 16
To all those saying this doesn't fix everything, what solution do you know of that fixes EVERYTHING? I don't live in that universe (yet).
BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN. Yes, there may be some cases where an alliance may collect more seeding points if they do otherwise, but now teams can clearly point to this rule and say, "No, that was not the intention and we are not going to go down that path." And, if that isn't enough for you, I'd argue that these 5 points covers 80% of the cases where teams will be tempted to go down that path. Dividing the number of cases where throwing a match earns a team more seeding points by 5 is a non-trivial improvement in my book. Joe J. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
As to the argument of whether 5 points solves this crisis: I don't think it does, but it makes winning more appealing to those who need the Highest qualifying points possible. I can imagine a situations where 6v0 would still be employed, but only for alliances with robots desperate to get easy qualifying points. Could you imagine if robots block their own goals so opponent's can't score on them? |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there. Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event? I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times. Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO... Quote:
1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either. Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made? |
Re: Team update 16
Team 5000 coach," I don't think so. My kids busted their butt for 6 weeks. Your not picking us anyway so we are here to have fun and play to win. Now you think your so smart come up with a strategy to win"
By the way, a team that could only push balls(at the time) won Kettering. |
Re: Team update 16
Quote:
I will not fault teams for continuing to pursue "lockdown" mode - helping the winner win bigger is still a benefit to the losing team - in effect, the losing team IS pursuing their best interests by doing this - this is how they "WIN" the match when a *real* win is out of reach. It is unrealistic to expect teams to try to WIN under all game conditions when doing so in certain conditions under the existing rules is directly to the detriment of the team. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi