[AcesPease]

The championships are over, and I thought it might make more sense to comment about the match schedule on an existing thread, rather than a generic championships likes/dislikes thread.

We were on Curie and it appears that the schedule achieved what it set out to do. A few observations:

1) Old and new teams were very mixed in the final standings and the alliances that were formed were all very close to each other. A little better strategy or luck and any of the alliances formed on Curie could have won that field. Watching an 8th seeded alliance win it all on Einstein, I have to assume the situation was similar on the other fields.

2) There were 8 rookies in the Championship alliances. For the record we teamed with a rookie at all three of our events this year. I don't know, but I doubt there have ever been this many rookies in the eliminations since the four division system started.

3) This game was very much a game of alliances. No machine was able to dominate unless their partners could help in some fashion. We won many rounds last year almost single handedly. We did not win any rounds this year unless we had help from our alliance partners, I suspect most people had similar experiences.

4) The match schedule employed seems to increase the likelihood of having a tough time in the qualification rounds. At one regional we almost breezed through quals because of excellent partners. At the next regional we struggled to win half our qual matches and we were almost left out of the elmins despite some excellent scoring by our team. At the championships we had a lot of close matches and won with a lot of good play by our partners. According to our scouting there were half a dozen teams on Curie ranked below 50 that belonged on the short list for picking. I know there have always been a couple really good picks way down in the standings, but almost a third of the top 24 sounds like a lot.

5) For the record I don't like the algorithm because in a field of 86 teams we should not have to face the same team twice. We were against one low numbered team twice, we were with a mid numbered team twice, and we were against and then with four more teams. That means we saw 29 different teams out of 86 when we could have seen 35, if the algorithm focused more on mixing up the match pairings.

FIRST seems to have accomplished what they wanted with the algorithm (see 1 and 2). But by limiting the variety of partners too many teams get locked into unfortunate schedules.