Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 10intheCrunch
Why not just have a tie breaker based on stength of schedule: total opponent record and record vs. common opponents. I think that the NFL tie breaking system is pretty consistent and fair...
|
I agree that strength of schedule should play into the formula somewhere. It seems like it is implying that the average opponents score is something that the winning team conscientiously somehow contributed to. I just don't see that occuring. If the teams were truely randomly selected as opponents - the capabilities of those robots and human players have more to do with how they performed than what the opposing alliance did for them. When winning is the more important factor than score differential AND the game dynamics don't really allow the field participants to know the score accurately (penalty points and hanging or not hanging cannot be comprehended until the match is over) very few if any teams are gonna try to barely win or allow their opponent to score very many points. This is very true when a robot hanging might just beat 2 robots that can't double or hang. Seeding methodology MUST match the game dynamics or the tie breaker rule that attempts to dissuade blowouts is meaningless.