Thread: Rule Changes?
View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:15
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: Time is of the . .
Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/28/99 6:14 PM MST


In Reply to: Rule Changes? posted by Tom Lish on 3/28/99 5:39 PM MST:



>>>>. Adding more teams an alliance is not a good solution at all.
>>>>Why add teams to an alliance? Why not just add more
>>>>alliance teams to the elimination rounds.

That would be much better than this 3 alliance thing, but this solution incorporates 8 more teams without taking anymore time. I=f you add more alliances to the elimination rounds, you will probably have to reduce the already scarce qualifying rounds. So given those parameters, I think it's a darn fine solution. :-Dan


__________________
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.