[Thad House]

I think that End Games are good for lower levels of competition, but having no end game is better for higher levels of competition. By the time teams get to division elims and higher, most teams have usually found the most efficient way to do the endgame. For instance, we saw no 30pt climbs on Einstein in 2013, and no 40 point balances on Einstein in 2012. But on Einstein 2014, we had that epic back and forth between the 2 alliance. 1 missed ball would have changed the entire outcome of the match.

In games with endgames, at the early level of competition, you can be winning through most of the match, then lose because the other teams have a better endgame. At the high level, most teams do the end game correctly, so it comes down to who executes better.

In a game like this year, at the early levels of competition, if you were ahead early, you were most likely going to win. But at the higher levels it was so close one error changes the entire outcome.


I personally liked not having an endgame because it made the robot simpler, but I don't know. I might like it back.