Quote:
Originally posted by MikeFromTeam71
now, on to the unsportsmanlike conduct during the matches. first off, in the spirit of the game, why would you EVER want to strike a deal with the other teams to inflate your individual score? to me, this defeats the purpose of even competing. this isnt what f.i.r.s.t is all about and everybody knows it. when teams get to the point where they are trying to make deals with other teams to inflate each teams individual score, then f.i.r.s.t competition has hit a low point.
|
I have to disagree with this. The game is presented as a set of rules. It is up to the teams to figure out how to play the game. What is wrong, especially in the spirit of gracious professionalism, to work out a plan such that the losing alliance gets 100 qualifying points while the winning alliance gets over 300? If FIRST didn't want this to happen, the qualifying points would look something like the number of points scored by the winning alliance.
We saw examples of teams pushing boxes onto the opposing alliances side to boost up their score. How is this any different than making an agreement up front to not zero out each other's stacks? Was it unsportsmanlike to leave scoring points on the opposing teams side? Did the spirit of FIRST command us to knock down the stacks on the other side when their robots couldn't cross the ramp?
Goofy scoring systems are a part of the FIRST competition. If you want it to be a competition, then teams are going to have different strategies for maximizing their scores. Unsportsman like? I don't see it that way. If FIRST wanted the scoring to be Alliance RED against Alliance Blue, with no cooperation, they would set the qualifying points to be only their alliance points, with no adders for the opposing alliance. If they wanted it to be ruthless, they would award you the difference in scores.
The set of rules encourages cooperation, even between opposing alliances.