Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceBiz
Ok, more so in the game this year, but it seems the first seed alliances who select the second seed are winning every regional. Is it just me or does it seem like this is not really in the spirit of FIRST?
If the two best teams almost always win together, why let them do it every single time? It makes it really hard, or at least overwhelmingly unlikely, for the number 7 or 8 eliminations alliance to win, while one lucky team that gets picked by the number 1 alliance in the second round basically gets a free ticket to worlds?
A perfect example of this is 1114 and 2056 at the waterloo regional. Their elim alliance scored about double that of the seccond best alliance.
Think about that.
1114 and 2056 would have both possibly made the finals each in an alliance by themselves. And the rules allow them to be in the same alliance together.
I think the number one through four seeded teams should not be allowed to pick each other. Thoughts?
See post 22 for the part of the argument I forgot.
(This post in no way represents the views of team 2537 as a whole. It is only an opinion of one of its members)
|
Ontarian here: You mean that it's possible for any alliance other than the #1 alliance to win? What a strange concept...
Joking about the unstoppability of 1114/2056 aside, I think things are fine the way they are. I agree with the others that this would just cause pre-planned diving/throwing of matches. For those that say it'd never happen, look back to 2012 when wilful unbalancing of coopertition bridges was a thing. Heck, even this year you hear of people refusing to cooperate in attempts to affect the ratings.
The combination of this year's qualification system and the wildcards made this year feel like the fairest chance a non-elite-but-still-strong team had of qualifying for CMP in forever. If you were a good alliance, you could make it to finals and pick up some wildcards without having to worry about getting steamrollered in quarters or semis because of an unfavourable bracket.