[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Correct, advancement criteria is different than championship award criteria. Else it could devolve into a farce:

• Suppose exactly 40% of teams advanced - the judging would be immaterial because the top 40% of teams would be determined by the robot game
• Suppose 50% of teams advanced - where would that last 10% come from if all teams had to be in the top 40% of game scores?

I sort of see what you are saying about Qualifier to State, although our advancement % was 25% I think. So judging is still very important.

However, advancing from State to Championship is just 1 team.

With State tournaments getting larger (72 teams in MD) it's nearly impossible for judges to get a consistant ranking across all teams. Each method used to normalize the judging has pitfalls and can be effected by random team groupings or judge differences. Adding more judged categories doesn't necessarily help normalize the results.

Why throw away the one and only non-subjective ranking component available?

Phil.