[Lil' Lavery]

I'll restate my opinion stated in the other thread. I really feel that the event would have been much more interesting and exciting if every team that was selected had to play to least one match during the elimination matches. My team was put in the position of being a fourth member who never took the field, and it was not a lot of fun watching our destiny be decided on the field by other teams. And we're not a perennial powerhouse who's used to playing in the eliminations all the time at any level, especially not IRI (this was as close to the IRI eliminations as we've ever been).
I suggest having it so each alliance would have to play all four teams at least once during the elimination matches. That would mean if you lost your first match during the QFs, you would have to play whichever team sat out during the next match, as your alliance may be eliminated. If you won/tied your first QF match, you could opt to stay with the same 3-team alliance until you're threatened to be eliminated in a later round (or you're threatening to win the competition and you still haven't played the fourth team). This is very similar to what FRC did with elimination alliances from 2000-2004, and was FTC still does.
Since you're only required to play them once, unless you draft a broken 'bot, you shouldn't ever be forced to play a broken bot (or if two 'bots break, but that's a risk in the current system as well). A question was raised in the other thread that if you lost your first match, wouldn't you be in bigger risk to lose your next match if your "back-up" truly is your least competitive alliance member. Simple solution to that problem, play your "back-up" in your very first match. It may lower your chances of winning that first match, but it allows you to sit them for the rest of the eliminations should you desire, and depending on how the other alliance utilizes their back-ups, may lead to favorable match-ups in later matches. Look at how many alliances have structured their alliances in FTC over the past couple years to see that is a very viable solution to that dilemma.