Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
I know you know that, and I know you weren't implying that, based on your use of the word "theoretically", I get that, but you are comparing two totally different "cheatings". One, where teams do things against the FIRST rules, such as the theoretical work on robot after season. The other, when you look at it, really isn't cheating. It's playing to the game.
|
I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn't intend to say that under the current system, picking in the top 8 is "cheating" or "unfair." I was just saying that in my hypothetical situation, the possibility of cheating would exist, just as it does today. In both my theoretical world and the current system, at some point (but different points) teams have to be trusted to play the game with integrity.
To add to EricH's question, what do we really want for a system in eliminations? Do we want the "best" robots to win the regional?
The 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3... system provides this. Do we want eliminations to be more competitive, to be everyone's game? The "no picks from the top 8" rule or some sort of randomized selection would provide this. Or do we want to provide inexperienced or under preforming teams with a chance to attend championships? The current system seems to allow for that. Finally, is it possible to formulate a compromise that retains the benefits and few of the drawbacks of proposed systems?