View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2012, 17:16
bduddy bduddy is offline
Registered User
FRC #0840 (ART)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: San Bruno, CA
Posts: 869
bduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
Also not quite true:

"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE plus 5 additional points for winning the match.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE."

I think where you're getting confused is that in general, you'd rather have won a game 10-9 than 10-1, but 15-9 was still better than 10-9. (For you and your opponents!)
That was almost certainly the worst seeding system in FRC history... it was the only one where the losing alliance got points based on the winning alliance's score, which really doesn't make any sense.
__________________

Does anyone else remember when TBA signatures actually worked?
Reply With Quote