[cglrcng]

Kevin,

You noticed the same thing I noticed, and wrote about in 3 different threads yesterday. You approched it from the value to a team paying in the per match angle, wherein I looked at it from the angle of comparisons using QPA or other points values (and how it made all the data collected really squed and virtually worthless), to use in any real comparisons of bot to bot across all of the events, or all of FIRST.

We are both looking at the same thing as being wrong, only what had value to each is different....(I was going at it differently...The data value was important to me, and the teams money was to you). I looked at your posting and I fully agree, that both are equally are important!

I don't see anyone changing it this year, but the approach to the avail. data and how the existing rules of this game, and new QPA data collection and application to rankings affect alliance building & comparisons accross all of FRC and at your specific events competing at & switching from win/loss/tie to QPA seeding & round robin playoffs format affects actual attempted alliance building using the data collected alone affects that.

This must be recognized early by all teams, so they can compensate for that junk data. Using eyes more than the avail. data solves that issue I concluded.

Thank you for going about it differently (and choosing the $$$$ value per match angle of view), as it added more and made me look at the same problem from a different angle combining the 2.

Now, how do we get the built in huge disparity (8~13 Q Matches), depending on what event you attend), changed for the future?

Though simple solution, is YOU choose events you compete in very wisely I guess, until the disparity is changed to a level playing field (I don't even see how FIRST even begins to attempt to change it), short of assigning the events you can participate in (and I hope that is never an option), or changing the program format by adding or reducing days/time of the event program (I also don't see the show length being changed either), so it appears to me, the Q Rounds number fits the available robots/teams competing at that event, to the show schedule length, and some math formula to get each an even amount of Q rounds.

Can't change it this year of course...But, if you want more value per match, go to Waterloo where 13 Q matches are held and fewer robots (though ask anyone not on that steamrolling super scoring winning alliance, that left everyone else in the virtual and real dust today, and they will probably tell you they wish that they had driven to Virginia instead I'll bet).

They received more value per match for the entry $$$$'s (less for the robot build hrs. and $$$$'s spent), and a higher QPA average in the avail. record stats due to the QPA Inflation accross the board because a couple to few stellar stars added value to QPA of each team present, then had 13 Q Matches to add that value under the new existing format & rules.

Thanks for making me look at something differently that before this weekend I really never paid much attention to.