Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
Consider this situation (which is a very real possibility next year when 67 becomes elgible again and 51 is at the same event, taking 2 of 3 Michigan RCAs potentially). Say Team A is a Hall of Fame team. Team B, who is just a step behind Team A, but almost as good and better than every other non RCA team in the country, loses to Team A at a regional. Team C, who is worse than Team A and B but still very good, is good enough to win an RCA at a separate event. Team C could enter the Hall of Fame when Team B is better.
|
That would be like saying that Team A competed at a regional with 67,217,and 68 and lost despite being (in theory) just slightly less capable than those teams. Then having Team B which competed against 30 rookies and is, itself, only slightly worse than Team A. It would mean that Team B has a chance of qualifying for Atlanta over Team A who has a better robot (in this example) Team B could win the Championship when Team A is better.
Additionally, Team A is potentially mentally deficient in your example, I mean that in the most offensive way possible, if you see a team that has won RCA the last 6 years in a row competing at one competition and not at another (assuming you do two competitions and HAVE this choice) the only logical solution is to not submit it there. If you don't have that choice, then you should find a way to get that choice. Who knows, it might even give you a better chance of winning an RCA.
This sounds like a familiar concept, let us make sure everyone is equal. Competition is a GOOD thing, the stiffer competition you face the better you will be. My one regret from 2008? I never got to play against 1114. In your example Team A needs to grow up and BEAT 67/51.
I understand your concerns but I honestly don't think that giving teams more competition is a BAD thing.