|
Re: Ranking
Actually, this was what our alliance did for our last qualification match, at the KC regional. We'd noticed the system didn't seem fair (why should the losing team get the points that the winning team scored?) so our alliance scored in the other alliance's goals. It ended up 13-0 with one penalty, so they had 13 QPs and we had 14. It was interesting, because we actually ended up playing defense in front of our own goals.
I agree that the system at least needs to be revised, to place more emphasis on wins and losses and less on the scores. Another problem that you could run into is that a blowout gives both alliances more QPs than a hard-fought match with well-played defense, where the score ends up, say, 2-3. It is also probably better for a losing team to lose by a lot-not a way to encourage continued scoring even if you're down.
A final problem is that all the hullaballoo about ranking points means that teams may have to entirely change their strategies between qualification matches and finals.
|