View Single Post
  #67   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-04-2012, 20:00
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,606
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: The Rest Of The Best

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackS View Post
In the case of 181, which regional should the teams be taken from to fill that spot? Chesapeake or Connecticut? If it is the second event the team qualified at, then isn't there a significant advantage to attending week 5 and 6 events?

EDIT: Nuttyman beat me to it. Darn.
My thought on that was to draw from teams who attended either event. So, for your example, both the teams at Chesapeake and Connecticut would be eligible to fill 181's extra spot and would be sorted by whatever criteria is selected.

Obviously, this does increase the chances of ties in a point-based system. Additionally, any biasing in the ranking system towards running more qualification matches (FiM/MAR rankings reward 2 points per qualification win) or larger events (FIRST's proposed ranking system would award 50 points to the #1 seed at a 50 team event but only 35 points for a #1 seed at a 35 team event) would have to be considered as well. But I think this is a less fundamentally flawed system than encouraging later season events.
Reply With Quote