Quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I do not blame the teams that are taking the "win one, shamelessly lose the next one" route. They read the rules, they understand them, and they want to win. We all want to win. It is FIRST's fault for blatantly leaving this option wide open to the teams: To try to win decisively or to win the backhanded way.
|
Ok, let's assume lowering your score in the eliminations is winning in a backhand way. Teams which engage in this "ungrasious and unproffesional backhand" strategy are at no fault of their own, rather it is FIRST's fault, because they leave the possibility of it helping teams? I find this difficult to believe. It is the responsibility of all teams to practice gracious proffesionalism, and to follow the spirit of the rules, it is not FIRST's responsibility to make it impossible for teams to act ungracious and unproffesional.
That said, I do agree in that I prefer the best two out of three to the current situation. I feel a bit ambivalent about this, however, as I also opposed the elimination rounds last year, where teams could capture three goals and sit (I saw that as boring). Thus, I wanted qps to play a higher role in elimination rounds. Many people felt this way, and that is why FIRST changed the game the way they did. Now, I agree the elimination matches this year should be changed next year. People who agree can tell FIRST in the FIRST Forums politely. But, seeing how FIRST made this rule because they were listening to us in the first place, please don't say FIRST is making a mockery of the game.
Interstingly enough, most people I've talked to thought the 2001 coopertition game boring to watch for the qualifying rounds. I did too. But I personally thought that was very exciting to watch in the elimination rounds. It is a challenge to come up with a game exciting to watch for both the qualifying rounds and the elimination rounds, but I trust FIRST will try their best (and they even illicited game design ideas from all teams).
Stephen