View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-04-2009, 12:07
rick.oliver's Avatar
rick.oliver rick.oliver is offline
Mentor - Retired
AKA: Pap
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Liberty Township, OH
Posts: 241
rick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How about eight divisions on four fields

To address a few of the issues raised: (and isn't this fun? CD is great )

I agree, it adds more time. I'm not sure how much net real time is increased because there would be some time recovered as most of the wait time between matches that currently occurs after the Quarter Final round would not be required.

I understand the concern about the "quality" of the alliances formed if a higher percentage of the teams attending participate in the elimination rounds. I'm not sure where that ranks on the list of criteria used by F.I.R.S.T.; personally, I prefer to see the best teams leading the alliances and able to be paired together.

Another consideration for me is the quality of the match play. I think folks would agree that elimination rounds match play is generally more exciting than qualifying rounds match play. In part, I think it is bacause the "higher quality" teams are allied together. I also think that it is because teams are working together for a common purpose; specifically they are not trying to showcase their own robot, rather they are supporting the goal of the alliance. Which is the more valuable lesson?