Thread: #1 seeded teams
View Single Post
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-03-2006, 06:35
MikeDubreuil's Avatar
MikeDubreuil MikeDubreuil is offline
Carpe diem
FRC #0125 (Nu-Trons)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 967
MikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to MikeDubreuil
Re: #1 seeded teams

First, thank's Tom for posting that spreadsheet. It's an interesting tool.

I would agree that the seeding rounds give a rough estimate of the best robots at a competition. Suprisingly, in Tom's spreadsheet the top 8 teams in the real rankings stayed ranked within the top 8 in the scaled rankings. This means that the seeding system is working fairly well.

I would agree that top 8 teams can pick "oddball" robots and win a regional. This is because the current ranking system rewards high scoring offensive rounds. Which is unfortunate because the skills needed during the finals are a little different. Offense wins #1 seed, defense wins championships.

My original point was that next year there should be a rule that two teams from within the top 8 should not be allowed to allaince together during the finals. They are the best robots at a competition. This isn't communism. FIRST would rather have the final rounds be exciting for all teams rather that just the dominant alliance. Every alliance should have the same chance winning.
__________________
"FIRST is like bling bling for the brain." - Woodie Flowers