[Jeff Waegelin]

I can't help but think this system could easily be fixed with one tweak:

Give the losing alliance their own score when determining seeding points.

You do this, it removes the case where the losing alliance gets more seeding points than the winning alliance, and it removes much of the incentive to go for the "6v0" strategy. It worked reasonably well for qualifying in 2003 and before (though I still prefer W-L-T scoring) and would take care of most of the biggest complaints.

All this being said, I think the system worked reasonably well in Manchester. I'm sure I'm about to be flamed by some team that lost one or two matches and seeded in the 20's, but most of the teams that seeded high at BAE were also the teams that I scouted and had performed well in their matches. There were, as always, exceptions, but that happens with ANY ranking system - we've all seen the teams that get declined multiple times because they squeaked into the top 8 on a fluke, before. By and large, though, I think things sorted themselves out well at one regional, at least. I'd be interested to know why things turned out so poorly at other events. Any thoughts on why?