|
I agree with eliminating ties.
I have done the math and it would be very difficult to get a better score than you could get by tying. (Teams could get as many as 452 points just by stacking 8 totes in the human round, putting 14 totes from the center in each scoring zone and getting back on top). This would be hard to duplicate with your opponent knocking down your stacks and pushing your totes out of bounds or stealing them, even if you do end up winning. You would have to score at least 152 points, much more if your opponent doesn't score many. (It can be awfully difficult to stack totes for your opponent and protect your own stack at the same time.)
As clearly shown in this string of messages, there is significant disagreement about whether rigging a match is or is not in the spirit of "gracious professionalism", though I have never been involved in any competition where it has been (no matter how it is done). Yes, teamwork is important, but that is why there are alliances.
Because of this, rigging the matches would give an advantage to those teams that felt it was OK (assuming they could convince their competitors) and a disadvantage to those who felt it was not OK.
If FIRST intended collaboration with the opposition to be OK, then they should specifically state it, otherwise, the rules should be modified so that it is not a significant benefit. Other than that rule, I think this is a great, complex and challenging game.
|