|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Have 16 alliances in elimination rounds? | |||
| Keep the elimination rounds to 8 alliances. |
|
20 | 57.14% |
| Have 16 alliances in the elimination rounds by adding 16 matches. |
|
15 | 42.86% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember way back when we sucked (last year), ok we were a first year team, but we were 13th or so at UTC and it was my job to get us picked. Despite an hour of sucking-up nobody noticed us and nobody picked us and it was crushing to the whole team to work so hard and to get passed over.
This year we ended up 1st seeds at UTC and seeds in Newton and it was exhillerating to see teams work so hard to get us to pick them. I felt really bad for some good teams with incredibly nice people (155 at UTC and 19 at nat's come to mind) who didn't get picked. If the scheduling issue can be worked out (and that's a BIG issue) than I would love to see more teams in the elimination rounds because it will force the high-seeds to notice more teams and it will make more teams feel wanted. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Long post - this year's game was tough - here's why: | archiver | 2001 | 7 | 24-06-2002 03:31 |
| Hits, Misses, & Suggestions -- long message | archiver | 2000 | 17 | 23-06-2002 23:36 |
| The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. | archiver | 2000 | 33 | 23-06-2002 23:35 |
| How do we view more teams? | archiver | 2000 | 0 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Multiple Regionals | archiver | 1999 | 55 | 23-06-2002 22:26 |