Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Natchez
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winged Wonder
 i'm not happy with this. |
With everything in life, mistakes are made and this is just another instance. It is how we address these mistakes that is important. I think if FIRST consulted the 24 alliances coaches and they agreed to proceed then I don't have a problem with this. On the other hand, if they recognized that this was a problem and made a decision in a "back room" then I also am not happy with this. I bet that it was handled in a very "professional" manner that will make us proud.
This incident exposes a very interesting strategy that if you are a top three seed, you may want to prevent other alliance captains from forming alliances with top 8 teams by selecting those you know will decline your invitation before selecting your desired alliance partner. A little risky but if you are a #1 seed, it makes since to start picking all of the "we don't want to be on your alliance" teams to prevent them from getting picked by another top 8 seed . Picking the #2 seed makes no difference but picking a #7 or #8 seed could make a huge difference.
Well, the teams that were DIRECTLY part of this mistake did not advance. Admittingly & indirectly, all of the teams were involved. |
Oh wow... you've exposed a new layer in strategy with regards to choosing alliances. Sure this doesnt exemplify gracious professionalism, but that isnt going to stop everyone. (thats a shame too).
I'm still not happy with this whole situation, but that doesnt change anything. Natchez, i hope you are right and the situations were handled professionally with the knowledge and consent of
all of the teams. There was human error--nothing can be done about it--and we should not place the blame on
anyone. We should just realize what occured, wait for an update/ruling from FIRST, drop this entire issue, and just move on in our lives, keeping in mind the rules for next time.