View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-03-2009, 13:37
XaulZan11's Avatar
XaulZan11 XaulZan11 is offline
Registered User
AKA: John Christiansen
FRC #1732
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Milwaukee, Wi
Posts: 1,329
XaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond reputeXaulZan11 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to XaulZan11
Re: Michigan rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springman View Post
In retrospect, I think that you may have hit on the real issue. If you look at the competitions this past weekend, there was a significant impact by teams entering their third competition. 67, 216 and 1918 are just a couple examples of teams that 'took' points out of the system that other teams near the middle of the pack could have used. Consider what these two events in particular would have been like without teams competing in their third event. At West Michigan, there were over 90 points (30 each for the win and 15 each for the 2 seed captain/selection) removed from the system by 1918 and 216 alone for their victory. Right now I feel that FIM should seriously consider not allowing a third event for any team because of this impact.
But those teams were needed to make the districts more 'even'. I don't know how many teams were competiting in thier 3rd event, but what if there were only 30 teams without them? I would be upset if I missed the elmininations at a 40 team event and then find out an equally talented team make it at a competition with only 30 teams. The various districts will never be perfectly equal, but I think the current system is best.
Reply With Quote