[Karthik]

I was just thinking back to the results of the Championship Event since the onset of divisions, and I realized that the number seeds have done phenomenally well. (I know this isn't land breaking news, I mean they are #1 seeds for a reason, but still the amount of success may come as a surprise to some)

In fact 2004 was the worst year at Championships for #1 seeds, as only wo progressed managed to win their divisions, while the other two lost in the quarterfinals.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane.

2001

• 3 #1 seeds win their divisions
  • Newton #1: 71, 294, 125, 365, 279 (Championship Winner)
  • Archimedes #1: 33, 254, 111, 349, 144 (Championship Finalist)
  • Curie #1: 60, 85, 75, 217, 115
• The fourth division champion was a #2 seed
  • Galileo #2: 177, 59, 122, 53, 340
• 1 #1 seed was a division finalist
  • Galileo #1: 45, 249, 128, 135, 108

2002

• 3 #1 seeds win their divisions
  • Newton #1: 173, 71, 66 (Championship Winner)
  • Einstein #1: 311, 308, 180 (Championship Finalist)
  • Curie #1: 144, 60, 64
• The fourth division champion was a #3 seed
  • Archimedes #3: 233, 25, 118
• 1 #1 seed was a division finalist
  • Archimedes #1: 121, 469, 230

2003

• 3 #1 seeds win their divisions
  • Archimedes #1: 111, 469, 65 (Championship Winner)
  • Curie #1: 343, 25, 494 (Championship Finalist)
  • Newton #1: 292, 378, 302
• The fourth division champion was a #4 seed
  • Galileo #4: 341, 175, 236
• 1 #1 seed was a division semfinalist
  • Galileo #1: 74, 68, 9

2004

• 2 #1 seeds win their divisions
  • Galileo #1: 1218, 469, 868 (Championship Finalist)
  • Newton #1: 1126, 67, 340
• 2 division champions were #4 seeds
  • Archimedes #4: 71, 494, 435 (Championship Winner)
  • Curie #4: 1038, 175, 1388
• 2 #1 seeds were division quarterfinalists
  • Curie #1: 47, 126, 148
  • Archimedes #1: 60, 33, 1241

I'm not sure why I found this to be so interesting. It's no surprise that the #1 seeds have been so successful, especially with the ability to pick from anywhere within the field. It is interesting to look at the difficulties some #1 seeds had this year. I think it's safe to say that the reason they weren't as dominant in as in the past, was because their was a lack of "dominant" robots this year. Fewer teams could control a match on their own. As a result, their are more variable, and more of a margin of error for the elite teams.

Just a thought for the off-season...