[TrevorJ]

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories about corkboard but I like the 3:00 minute match speculation.

In every round of matches, you have fixed time and you have variable time. Fixed time includes field reset and robot settup. These are basically the same every year at 4 minutes and 15 seconds. Variable time is the match itself. you can add 45 seconds of match without increasing the fixed time one bit. This means that a robot gets more guaranteed time on the field at the sacrifice of one or two total matches.

I'll illustrate with the district model because that is what I am most familiar with. Over the past few years we have dealt with match turnover times of roughly 6 minutes and 30 seconds. Multiply that by 80 matches and you have 8 hours and 40 minutes of qualification matches to play with. In reality a little more because of inevitable delays, but an equal amount of time should be reserved for delays in either presented scenario.

Now, lets say we add 45 seconds to each match to bring it to 3 minutes. That makes total match turnover time 7 minutes and 15 seconds. First of all, this added time ought to decrease some stress on volunteers, and cause an overall smoother competition flow. Second, if you divide 8 hours and 40 minutes by 7 minutes and 15 seconds, there is time for 72 matches. If we assume 40 robots at the competition and a traditional 3 vs. 3 style game, there is a reduction from 12 qualification matches to 10.8. So, probably a loss of one match depending upon how they treat the non-whole number.

Despite the loss of one match, each team has gained an extra 6 minutes of field time, which should not only be more enjoyable for students, but improve the quality of rankings and scouting. These extra six minutes should improve the sample size by which each robot will be evaluated, thereby giving teams truer results in their scouting data. It's akin to getting an extra month of sampling when evaluating a baseball player. The peripherals of the robot will have a better opportunity to normalize the randomness of the results much like the extra moth of playing time for the baseball player, and regression will pull unlucky teams closer to their true talent level, meanwhile luckier teams will regress in the opposite direction and design flaws have a better chance of being exposed.