This year's method of determining winners in the elimination rounds certainly will create some discussion and controversy.
It seems that if you don't win both matches outright, you'll suffer if you win one (even by a large margin) then lose a close match.
I've gathered some stats from this weekend's regionals (except for the Sacramento Regional because the results have yet to be posted on the FIRST website).
I've looked at three scenarios by which alliances can win an elimination round match:
#1. Win two games (including a third game if tied for QPs after two games)
#2. Split the two games; win on the basis of more QPs AND also beat the combined raw score of the opposition.
#3. Split the two games, win on the basis of more QPs, DESPITE having less total raw score than the opposition.
Results:
Four regional final matches:
THREE were won outright (two consecutive victories by the winning alliance.
ONE match decided according to scenario #2 (more QPs and a raw score advantage)
Eight regional semi-finals:
THREE were won outright
ZERO won by scenario #2
FIVE won by scenario #3 (more QP's, but lower raw score total)
Sixteen regional quarterfinal matches:
ELEVEN were won outright
TWO were won by scenario #2
THREE were won by scenario #3
In one of the St. Louis semi-final matches a team managed to get it's robot on top of the ramp late in the match - ultimately causing their alliance to lose the match!
Pretty interesting game where it's better to lose big than to come up just short...