[Don Wright]

The seeding system hurt us sometimes, and helped us sometimes. But, I will say, that without a doubt, it did it's job. I've never seen a system where at the end of qualifications, the top 8 were as proper as they were this year. And I think this is proven by the large number of inner top-8 picks I saw at the events I attended.

I think the problem with the seeding system was the way it was worded...because people still don't get it (as proven by many posts above). There are no winners/losers in qualifications. Only points. So...it should have read something like this:

"There are four goals...two red, two blue. Robots score balls into these goals and points are added to the red score, or blue score based on the goal color. Robots are encouraged to score in either goal to try and get as many seeding points as possible. Various strategies and coopertition efforts are expected (and encouraged) to get the best seeding scores based on the strengths and weaknesses of all robots playing in that round. Seeding points are given as follows:

- Which ever color goals receives more balls, all robots on the field get a seeding score equal to the number of balls scored.

- The similar color alliance will receive two bonuses: 5 points for getting more balls + 2 times the number of balls in the other color goals.

- The other color alliance will receive no bonus.

- If there is a tie for the number of balls scored in the red goal and blue goal (with alliance penalties deducted), each robot receives 3 x the score.

- Point penalties are then assessed to each alliance, if appropriate."

Or something like that...