Part of the scouting I've been doing for this season, amongst the usual hybrid, teleop, end game stuff, is how rankings would have turned out if coop score didn't add to qualification score (i.e., qs = qs - cp). There were some major changes.
Some major examples include the following (The 'separations' below are my speculation based on who I thought the number 1 seed would have picked had they had the chance. No guarantee):
- 125 would have seeded 1st in Boston, separating 341 and 233
- 3568 would have seeded 1st in Kettering, separating 2337 and 33
- 1114 would have seeded 1st at Greater Toronto West, likely resulting in them allying with 2056 once more
- 1868 would have taken 1st in Central Valley, separating 254 and 971
- 624 would have taken the 1st seed from 359, splitting up 359 and 118
A lot of people are saying that if the coop bridge wasn't in play, that the better balancers would be balancing for their alliance, and the result would be different win-loss rating, which would put those teams on top anyway. And that's true. But the numbers above are just from basic review. If there is some way to find a list of who balanced on the coop bridge, it may be interesting to look at how scores would be different if a team with consistent balancing had instead aided their alliance in a double balance, or even just getting a single. It may also be worth noting that, assuming both alliances offer up their best balancer for the coop bridge (which is what I've been seeing), both alliances would gain the extra balancer.