[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

Perfect co-op score does not get you the coopertition award...there is a formula that is used. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I believe it is (twice your coopertition points) - (qualification points)

The above is correct. The interesting thing about the formula is that since coopertition points are included in the qualification points, the formula "reduces" to the below:

(coopertition points) - (Win/Loss/Tie points)

So, basically, the coopertition award goes to the team which has the biggest positive difference between their coopertition points and their W/L/T points. Another way of thinking of this is that the coopertition award goes to the team which has a "coopertition record" which is the most better than their W/L/T record. As such, the award will typically go to a team with a relatively weak W/L/T record but a very good coopertition record. Another interesting corollary to this, is that for any teams with the same coopertition record, the one which would get the coopertition award would be the lowest-seeded of those teams!

I think the rationale for having the award may be that the team winning this award is more likely to have been in matches where their alliance focused on coopertition, rather than winning the match -- particularly to the point where they would lose matches because of the focus on getting the coopertition bridge balanced.

However, in practice, I wonder whether or not the recipients of the coopertition award actually tended to be teams which were themselves usually on the coopertition bridge, or whether the teams receiving the award tended to be semi-random "statistical variations" from the qualification match schedule? I have been curious to know if this was the case, but haven't asked our scouting team to go through our collected data from the two regionals we attended to see if the coopertition award recipients were actually robots which themselves frequently balanced on the coopertition bridge.