Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
Really?
We came back from a 5-1 deficit to win 7-6 (on a single penalty on our opponents --- BAE Qual53). This comeback scored seeding more points for us than would be possible had we assisited our opponents.
Giving up is just plain foolish, and teaching to do so is worse regardless of the scoring system.
|
Given that there have been around 8 billion posts highlighting just how much the coopertition model differs from the traditional rah rah win good lose bad sports model, there is a good chance that your definition of "giving up" does not apply to the FIRST model.
I wonder what percentage of similar deficits across all of Week 1 matches resulted in comeback wins....
You do raise a good point that penalties play a factor - although now with U16, perhaps not so much - in determining winner/loser. They are definitely another thing which would tend to increase the deficit threshold at which a team might choose to "go for the loss". But due to the rules, that threshold is still there, as teams will still consider the strategy.
Teams were presented with this conflict between winning outright and maximizing seeding scores - both supposedly *good* things to pursue - when it was built into certain game situations via the rules. Originally, the rules heavily disfavored winning outright in some circumstances. The GDC has done a good job of addressing some of the most notable situations and restoring balance with Update 16, but they have NOT tipped the scales entirely toward winning outright as the preferred outcome under ALL situations. Some still remain viable. If FIRST persists in keeping such choices in place, that's their decision (and not necessarily a bad one), but if they do, I cannot fault any team for pursuing either option if they feel they are doing what's BEST for them.