Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul
Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.
We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.
When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.
Raul
|
As one of the teams affected by 176/111's stragety in 2006, I will say we were certainly disappointed that the "scorched earth" plan was put into place, but it is still one of the best strategic moves I've witnessed firsthand in my years as a FIRST mentor and I've always had a lot of respect for Raul and Co. for pulling it off. It got them to the Newton Finals, so I would say it was a success. We would have done the same thing and still would.
Newton was so stacked in 2006 that we still ended up with a great alliance with 1503 and 1718 and nearly knocked off 25/968/195's alliance in the semi's.
If only we would have won Qual Match 40....shoulda, woulda, coulda. Watching 229 fire ball after ball into the goal still haunts my dreams.......(101 to 92. Who scored 92 in qualifications and LOST a match that year?)
I agree with Raul that I hope it doesn't happen in STL this year, too. The Co-op bridge has certainly been the wildcard this year....