Thread: To qualify or not to qualify
View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 23:11
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: Partitioning the national
Posted by Meg Z..

Student on team #349, Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co..

Posted on 6/10/2000 4:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Partitioning the national posted by Andy Grady on 6/10/2000 8:14 AM MST:



This idea does have merit. However, I think there is one major flaw which is that teams in the 'lower' competition and teams in the 'higher' competition would not get to interact as much. It's not that great to watch matches when half the robots are broken and there is little or no scoring, which would happen if it was all lower seeded teams. Scouting for the big competition (winners of high vs winners of low) would also be a huge problem because you wouldn't know who you'd be up against, or even if you'd make it that far. Part of the excitement of the nationals is that EVERYONE is there all at once and you could be allied with or go up against anyone you meet. I definitely think dividing the nationals is preferable to having it be by invitation only, but it still needs to be all one competition.
In my opinion, extending the national competition would be better than partitioning it. This provides for more seeding matches so everyone gets a better chance. With the amount of teams that are reportedly being added this year, they'll have to extend it anyways if they want us to play more than one seeding match.
Meg :-) 349


__________________
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.