Let me see if I can help explain where Mallot was coming from as I don't think the intention of this thread was to make teams feel cheated or punished, but rather to open discussion on the idea of making for more balanced elims, more challenge to good teams, the excitement of a more balanced chance at winning, and possibly increased opportunity for more teams who might not otherwise have a chance to experience success on the field. I have a feeling that Mallot was making a very hasty post from school (
) and didn't have a chance to accurately make his point in a limited amount of time and as a result did not start the discussion off in a focused manner. Since it got lost, I'll see if I can help bring it back inline.
This past weekend at the Midwest Regional there were clear lines between the teams performance levels- like most regionals. However, the regional was relatively small, and there were a lot of rookie teams. (Yes, a rookie won the event, yes WE were also an exceptional rookie team who also won an event and swept the rookie awards in 2004, but doing this is more the exception than the rule.) You should have seen the excitement and enthusiasm present among the 3rd round alliance selections because they made it to elims, because the teams were fairly balanced and they thought there was a chance they could help win!
The locking the top 8 idea is more about spreading the wealth of experience and extending it to others in a more even way. We all know winning isn't everything, but simply having a shot to win, or being picked by a team like Beatty and playing in the finals can make a huge difference in what a younger inexperienced or resource-challenged team thinks and feels about FIRST. If winning really isn't everything then getting to play with the "better" teams doesn't always have to be, nor should it be reserved just for the top teams who have "earned it" on the field. Someone once said, it's not just a robot competition, yet a high percentage of us strive for and celebrate that part of it, and in the most outward ways. Does anyone really go to any competition in the hopes of losing gloriously? Further making the competition point, even though Chairman's Award is tops, we don't see debates or presentations on the Chairman's award that we can all stand and cheer or vote for, just a long speech and a presentation for a couple minutes at the end of the event. Sorry, I digress...
After seeing the diverse alliances compete and while working with and watching lower ranked teams get the chance to put their best foot forward and at least experience the thrill of participating in the elims. (which were VERY exciting) the thought occurred that if the top 8 had to pick from the remaining field of 9-(nn) teams then it would be a true test of the top ranked teams ability to build and lead an alliance against comparably ranked teams while also leveling the playing field a bit more and providing more opportunity for other teams to have greater odds of being a part of a winning alliance.
Underdogs will always arise with any system, but I think we've all been to enough events to know that if teams like HOT, T3, Beatty, Wildstang, Martian's, Killer Bee's, Las Guerilla's etc. ( they are all great teams- we respect these guys and really enjoy playing with, or against them - sorry for not mentioning other teams in the country, we're just a Midwest team) but if they are there at an event, they will probably be in the elims. If two of them manage to align with each other, they will most likely make semi's or win because you know they will perform well. We know first-hand this is
not always true, we led a #3 alliance that won against HOT and the Martian's with an alliance of team #141 and team #1024 (who was ranked 24th) at WMR in 2004. The point is that
generally speaking you'd feel safer betting money on a dual alliance of any well-known top performing team over the lesser known smaller teams, if for nothing else because of their reputations. However, when these top performing teams are mixed-up and opposing one another things are not so certain and the elements of chance, excitement and challenge greatly increase, where do you place your bet now? Not so easy to choose anymore is it?
The idea of locking the top 8 sounded like an easy way of adding more of a challenge to the top performing teams (who btw seem to be the loudest ones asking FIRST for more challenge at the annual forums) but more importantly by providing more equal opportunity for the other teams as opposed to stacking the alliance deck with top seeded/performing teams. (We've also seen this "locking" approach done at Off-Season events and it actually works quite well.) Rank still gets the chance to pick first and sequentially - not serpentine- so they still have some earned advantage but then we get to see which of the ranked teams really is the "best of the best" in terms of performance, scouting, and leadership of the alliance they can form. It's just one more chance for a ranked team to problem solve with limited resources, limited time and in a challenging situation while sharing the experience.
With that I think Mallot's original post should have said "unfortunate to the lower ranked teams" rather than "unfair to all the teams", because had that regional been a little bit larger the intense excitement of those younger teams in the elims would have
probably been limited to mostly veterans and the inspiration of those young teams would not have existed as it did. I think the more teams who experience something like the elims the more people who will be more deeply inspired by participating in the program or at the very least that much more motivated to come back next season.
Personally, I think I like the idea that was mentioned of a random #3 pick idea and the potential opportunity it gives the remaining teams. From what I saw last week, the lower ranked teams in the elims gave just as much effort as the higher ones did in the elims and with great effect regardless of their rank or capability, they had a lot of heart. Again, consider what a morale boost this could be for a lower ranked team or how inspired they might walk away simply because they got to be in the elims. Isn't this idea in-line with our FIRST's Inspiration mission and also a balance (albeit a reduction) of a teams picking options? Even if the top 8 took the next 8, they all would have to help the random third and work with it's strengths and weaknesses to get the best from it for the alliance and help pull them up in more ways than just the event.