Thread: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals.
View Single Post
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 23:34
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: At first I thought so too...
Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #88, TJē, from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Depuy, a Johnson and Johnson Company.

Posted on 8/17/2000 6:15 PM MST


In Reply to: At first I thought so too... posted by Splash on 8/15/2000 3:09 PM MST:



I would agree that this system is better but not perfect. I don't think there really is a perfect system. 1 group could have 12 great alliances and another could have 2. Only thing I don't like is lets say the group with 12 great alliances had an alliance that could beat everyone except the team it lost to in it's own division, what your really doing is hurting the teams in the strong division and also hurting the weaker divisions by not having stronger alliances. But then you look at it like this, maybe the alliance that comes out of the weakest group turns out to be the Champion. i don't know, it's complicated but if this came before me I would vote to give it a try

Kuli Tjē



__________________
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.