Let me play what if here for a minute.
Recall that at that moment in time, there were 4 matches left. 1114 was ranked #1, 111 was ranked #2 but the difference between them was pretty small. After this match there would be only 3 more matches for things to settle out.
As back ground let me define three "edge conditions":
- a blow out but high scoring: this is what we had. Both 1114 and 111 put distance between themselves and the rest of the field but they continue to duke it out amongst themselves for primacy.
- a close high scoring match: Whomever wins this match is #1 seed because the 2X the losers score + 5 points for winning would be very unlikely to be overcome. This is the outcome 1114 wanted to avoid because they would likely be the loser in this case (or at least you can argue that on paper that was the likely outcome)
- a low scoring close match: Both 1114 and 111 fall out of the race for #1 seed (and the right to pick 469)
It is the 3rd case that I would like to explore a bit.
- Suppose that 469 prefer 1114 to be #1 seed (I don't know this to be the case, but let me make some assumptions to explain why I think the GDC should revisit their seeding calculation).
- Suppose further that whomever was in 3rd place in the rankings was not so good but had made it clear that they would draft 1114 over all other teams (because they didn't like the style of play of 469 or because they were a fellow Canadian team or because their scouting team has a collective crush on Karthik, whatever -- again, give me my assumption for the minute).
Now, under this condition, 111 could easily think, this way. Option 1 is what 1114 wants. Option 2 is what I would prefer, but I can't have that option if 1114 and company don't try. What if I can force option 3? Then what? Well, 1114 and us are still closely duking it out but we are duking it out for 2nd at best. BUT... the team that is likely to become 1st place will draft 1114 if they are not in 1st place, which means I get to draft 469 after all. So... Heads I win, Tails I win.
Now... ...Would it be right for 111 to decide to play against 469 and 1114 (and presumably the 888, WildStang's other partner, who would want as many seeding as they could muster) by actively defending 469?
You can argue with my scenario, but you have to give me that it is completely possible for teams on the alliances to want other outcomes based on how the seeding is going to settle out.
If you take the position that the job of qualification matches is to seed in the position you believe will maximize your chances of doing well after lunch on Saturday, and that as long as you do not violate any of the rules of the game, do whatever it takes to seed where you want to, then you will ALWAYS be able to put together a scenario that has moral side effects you are not going to be happy about if you really think things through.
SO... ...I think the GDC should make a general statement (or a rule if you'd rather) that says that it is bad for the game, and for FIRST generally, to have teams gaming the system in this way, that it is corrosive to the FIRST community, puts teams in ethical paradoxes, confuses the general public, causes lice to thrive and rats to over run the castle, etc. (insert your bad outcome here)... ...Therefor, it is the desire of the GDC that teams try to win every match that they are in. Even if they are in a hopeless cause, they should be trying to accomplish the game objective. Strategies aimed at deliberately losing a match or losing it in a way that provides a seeding benefit are not in the best interest of the game and are not to be employed or encouraged.
Specifically, if ever optimizing seeding strategies are at odds with trying to accomplish the game objectives, teams are to favor accomplishing the game objectives over seeding considerations.
I know that this is not an enforceable rule in many cases. BUT it is a clear statement of principle that will give teams that care about such things guidance as to the path they should pursue.
Joe J.