Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
The new selection process was, in part, an attempt to slightly even out the competitive level for the finals. No one believes that we will ever reach the point that each of the final alliances will actually have a real 1-in-8 probability of winning the competitions, and that was not the intent. But the desire was to move a little bit away from the point where the #1 alliance position was almost an assured win every time.
-dave
|
I believe the new process has achieved an excellent balance of rewarding the teams that have earned the highest ranking and not guaranteeing them that they will win the event.
These high ranking teams have earned their position, not by luck but by hard work, perseverance and solid planning and design. I don't think it would be right to force them to a position of having to choose alliance partners that would bring their chances down to the point of only having a 12.5% chance of winning. I also don't think having a 75% or greater chance of winning is right either.
Personally, I wouldn't want to send teams to Nationals that were not representative of our Regionals best! By having the #1 seed teams running at about 50% winning rate, I think we actually are seeing the Best of the Best advancing. Here's why: During qualification rounds, quite often a really good team will be allied with teams that are, well, not so strong. Ultimately, their overall ranking may not be reflective of how well that team can really perform. Then during the alliance selection process they are chosen by a team that has paid attention and seen what the different teams are capable of doing and therefore, assemble a team capable of winning the Regional.
All in all, I say leave the process how it is. It is a good balance of "Fairness" without too much "Bias".