Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fultz
Teams knew going in that the 4th pick might not play and that it was totally up to the alliance captain. The change was made to let the alliance determine who their back up could be, instead of relying on the ranked order of teams. A team always had the option to say "graciously decline" if they did not like the idea of watching but not playing. Many of the 4th teams felt they contributed to their alliance with strategy, spare parts and other means, even if they did not get onto the field.
|
Chris and I would make good team mates, we rarely see things the same way…more opinions produces a better solution. Being on the winning alliance in 2007 and not playing, left me feeling our team did not contribute enough to be considered one of the champions of the 2007 IRI Competition. I would never “graciously decline” and give up an opportunity to help an alliance if someone broke or if the alliance thought we would be the preferred partner for a particular match. It is better to have a chance to play than no chance at all.
IRI wants to have the best of the best compete, I understand that, and requiring the 4th partner to play could water down the quality of the matches. All I ask is that you don’t put more teams in the uncomfortable position you put us in. If we win an award we want to earn it not have it handed to us by others.
Possible solution: Have each alliance pick a 4th partner as their backup, if the backup is called to play they are part of the alliance if they are not called in they are not part of the alliance. I would also propose that just because the 4th partner is called in to play, it does not preclude any of the other alliance partners from playing in any remaining matches. If the 4th partner is used it is a 4 team alliance, if not it remains a 3 team alliance.