The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can't believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it's clearly more "fair" (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's not an improvement over previous years.
And I'd hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as "lucky."
That being said, I did propose
something similar in
another thread, but with a caveat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
My thought on that was to draw from teams who attended either event. So, for your example, both the teams at Chesapeake and Connecticut would be eligible to fill 181's extra spot and would be sorted by whatever criteria is selected.
Obviously, this does increase the chances of ties in a point-based system. Additionally, any biasing in the ranking system towards running more qualification matches (FiM/MAR rankings reward 2 points per qualification win) or larger events (FIRST's proposed ranking system would award 50 points to the #1 seed at a 50 team event but only 35 points for a #1 seed at a 35 team event) would have to be considered as well. But I think this is a less fundamentally flawed system than encouraging later season events.
|