[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 4/12/2000 4:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Alliances in trouble? posted by Thomas A. Frank on 4/12/2000 3:07 PM MST:



I think what FIRST did this year with the scoring system was a good change of pace. When you take the scoring system from 99(3 times your score)if you one 160-1, what does that prove? it proves that you can dominate a team. No one wants to lose 160-1. and not many people want to see one team get killed. But if you take this years scoring system( 3X the loser's score) to dominate a team 56-1 that gets you 3 points and we all know 3 points per round won't get you into the top 16. I think Dean and Woody( And I commend them for doing this) didn't want to see teams lose 50-1. They wanted to see close games where the blue alliance had to put in points into the red alliance to help them get more points. Another case, Blue puts in points to red and then the red robot knocks the other blue robot off the ramp and red ends up winning. it was there way of showing us that we need to help out everyone not just our alliance partner. I call recall people were complaining about the 3X your score for the competiton last year because the mostly defensive teams couldn't score big points. I think FIRST wanted to see Closer matches, they didn't want to see 486-24 matches like we had in 99. I don't know if I would do it again but I like the idea for atleast one year, I would do it again too.

Kuli Team 88