View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:13
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: narrative plus a deal breaker idea

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 3/29/99 7:31 AM MST


In Reply to: narrative plus a deal breaker idea posted by Joe Johnson on 3/28/99 6:29 PM MST:



: Joe Johnson Wrote...
: OK, Finally, here is my deal breaker idea:

: I propose that a team that rejects an invitation in the first draft is not allowed to be picked in the 2nd draft. Further, I propose that the first match of the first round must be played by the picking team and their #1 pick.

: Why? Well, I propose that teams ought to pick their top pick in the first draft. As it is, if a team makes a deal with another team, they need not choose them first. In fact, one of the winners of the Great Lakes was team 27, which was the last team that Beatty picked, but their "A" team in terms of which team played most matches.

: Under the proposed modification, a team would not risk not picking their best team first because 1) they might be picked by another team in the 1st round and then that team would either have to accept or sit it out. 2) If they were willing to risk this they would then also be force to play at least one match with their first pick.


I'm for everything but the deal breaker for this reason. A top 8 team will not know what teams it will have to face while it's deciding who to pick as alliance partners. If they pick two teams that provide them different strategy options, they should be free to choose which option to field once they learn who they'll be facing.

There could be legitimate reasons for an alliance to field thier "C" team first. In our case in Detroit, the seeded team chose to field the "B" and "C" teams and left themselves out of the first match (an extrememly gutsy move in my oppinion!) because they felt that gave them the best match up against their opponents.

I think the first part of your idea, not allowing teams that decline in the first round to accept a pick in the second round, sufficient to solve the problem without tying the alliances hands when it comes to fielding teams.

Jeff Burch
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.