[Swampdude]

I think if every seeding match were played 6v0 the best offensive teams would rise to the top, because they will consistently score higher whichever alliance they're with. I think the 6v0 (everybody wins) is better than the 3v3 (loser wins) as far as getting the best offensive teams to the top (which are usually the ones at the top anyways). The week 1 results won't show this because they didn't start figuring it out until Saturday.

However, those who can't convince alliances of 6v0 are kind of screwed. This means the teams who do the best job of convincing everyone to work together, or get parings that favor it will seed the highest, and not necessarily who scores the best.

I personally don't think the GDC thought of this as they put a lot of emphasis on the opponents score being a multiplying factor for the winner. I think they missed the lack of incentive for the losing alliance.

I like the idea of not counting balls scored from the opposing alliance, but that screws up FIRSTS intention of coopertition as well. I would whole heartedly support a rule change to get this season back on track. Otherwise anyone at the Florida regional can expect team 179 will be looking to cooperate.

Maybe we should start threads for each regional so teams can advertise in advance whether they are willing to 6v0 or not. Then we can avoid some of the confusion and confrontation in advance. I really don't want to offend anyone if they feel it is a moral issue. I see it as 6 teams working as an alliance rather than 3. But if our alliance or opponents refuse we will cooperate just as well.

COME ON FIRST, IT'S OK TO MAKE A CHANGE, IT'S NOT TOO LATE!!!