[Chris Hibner]

I think there are four reasons that contributed to the worse-than-average showing at nationals for the #1 seeds. Two have been mentioned already, but I'll repeat them.

1) Three teams per alliance lowered the importance of a good robot. (already mentioned)

2) Three teams per alliance made the qualifying a little less reliable this year. (alread mentioned)

3) This to me is the most important reason: lack of variation between robots and no single dominant strategy. In past years, there was generally a single dominant strategy that only a few teams figured out. If these teams didn't qualify #1, they would usually be picked by the #1 seed and then roll through the eliminations.

This year, virtually every good robot did the same thing and it was all about driving, efficiency, and (let's face it) a little luck on the timing. What do I mean by luck on the timing? During the final 4 in Atlanta, most of the matches ended with each alliance having practically the same (very high) number of tetras. The team that won was the team to be in the right position during their scoring cycle that they ended up with the last tetra on top in a key position. This was very similar to the high-scoring football games where you hear the announcer say, "whoever has the ball last is going to win." Sure there is some strategy involved in getting the last one on top, but it appeared that the teams in the finals were generally playing very similar strategies.

4) (not yet mentioned) Statistical variation. The performance of the #1 seeds in the eliminations is going to fluctuate a little year-to-year. Some of this year's performance might just be simple statistical variation.