[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

Because seeding is random.

I was not aware seeding was the primary consideration in game design.

It is somewhat ridiculous that you can build an awesome robot, pay thousands of dollars to attend championships, and then have 3 matches where neither partner is capable of possessing the ball, or really even move effectively. You basically lose those matches before they start.

In any real team sport, could you expect to reliably win on your own? If FIRST didn't want FRC to be a team sport, why wouldn't they just get rid of alliances?

And of course it's nonsense, Which is why your slippery slope fallacy is ridiculous.

Pointing out the extremes as an attempt to figure out where exactly you'll draw the line is not a fallacy. I am attempting to reconcile our utility functions - to do this, I need to first figure out what yours is.