Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
I don't think you can have an argument that says "6v0 strategies do not work" when the #1 seed had 1/5 of their matches 6v0.
|
Let's be perfectly clear. In the first 6v0 match, we were strongly favored to win anyway, which meant that the 6v0 strategy very likely cost us QPs. Not benefited us, but cost us, because we were strongly favored to win the game in the first place, and were denied double our opponent's score. It helped them, but it didn't help us.
The second 6v0 match (Q70) was a complete wash, because we were the lowest-seeded team of the four in contention, and would have gained on and possibly passed the #4 and #5 seeded teams had it been a straight-up game that we won. (And we likely would have won.) So this 'wash' also cost us in the seeding rankings, both in terms of overall position *and* in the QPs needed to catch the #1 and #2 seeded teams.
Those two 6v0 games decidedly did *not* help us -- they hurt our overall standing.
It is very disappointing to me that the first year we have ever been good enough to place in the top eight -- much less the top seed -- is being cheapened by these kinds of shenanigans. I'm very proud of my team, and I hope none of them read these threads and become disappointed that their well-earned place at the top of the FLR, won with honor, integrity, and gracious professionalism throughout, is being called into question because of an exploitative trick that twists coopertition into a dark vision of what it was supposed to be.
Even if the GDC envisioned 6v0 strategies as a way for teams to work together to rise all of their boats -- and I am far from certain that this is the case -- I *am* certain that they did not intend for it to be used to bring down successful teams.
And that's what it does.
It should be wholeheartedly rejected by all teams as counter to the spirit of FIRST.
Patrick