Thread: Nationals a la NCAA
View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:24
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
I think this IMPROVES chances of low ranking teams
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/17/2000 8:36 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Randomize is best....eh? posted by Michael on 3/17/2000 7:35 AM MST:



It is not an easy straightfoward case, but I think on average, the idea of small groups (70 being small -- relative to 280 anyway) helps teams that will not rank high but are good partners.

Here is my logic.

Within each group of 70, all the teams have a fairly good idea of who is in there group with the skills that are needed to help win the championship of that group.

So, when the picking comes, the top 8 ranked teams do a pretty good job of picking alliance partners based on theses skills.

Then each group has its own quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals. THEN each finals winner from the 4 groups supplies one alliance to the FINAL FOUR.

Yes it is possible that the second place finisher from group B may have been able to beat any of the finalist from groups A, C and D but that is just the luck of the seedings, which is no different from the NCAA men's basketball tourney when you think about it.

I argue that teams that are good but rank low are less likely to fall between the cracks when there are 4 groups of 8 picking teams choosing from 4 corresponding relatively well know groups of 70 teams than when there are 16 picking teams choosing from a massive & bewildering group of 280 teams.

For one thing the math is better. 8 out of 70 is a better percentage than 16 out of 280.

For another thing, the social dynamics are better. If a group plays all 7 qualifying matches against teams from the same group, then they will simply KNOW more about the teams that they are picking from that group.

Finally, smaller groupings help low ranking teams trying to market themselves as good partners by limiting the number of teams that could pick them, therefore allowing them to focus there efforts.

By the way, one additional benefit is that it would allow FIRST to give out more awards without too much shame. They could have a 'play of the day' from each group, a 'rookie all-star' or two from each group, at 'group champion' & 'group finalist' from each group, etc.

This really would be a great idea to implement ASAP (2000 if possible).

Joe J.


__________________
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.