|
More teams in the elimination rounds
In one of the current threads, a number of teams were expressing some surprise that they weren't picked for the elimination rounds in Houston.
At the Arizona Regional, there were 37 teams so almost 2/3 of them went on to the elimination rounds. At the championships, only about 1/3 of the teams went on to the elimination rounds.
I would like to see that percentage increased. Otherwise, there is bound to be a lot of deserving teams that are wondering why they weren't picked.
Some people are worried that basing Qualifying Points on the difference in scores between winners and losers would be tough on less experienced teams. I personally think that having only a 1/3 of the teams go to the elimination rounds is far harder for teams to swallow, especially at the championships where there were many good teams who had travelled a long way to compete.
One possible solution would be to have a little less practice time and more match time. If we had 16 alliances per division (48 teams) going into the elimination rounds), we would need to have 16 more matches to get back to the 8 alliances currently in the elimination stage. (That assumes that the alliance with the highest total score moves on. Personally I think that would be fine, IF we got rid of the multiplier. In other words, the highest total score moves on, period. That would allow a team who lost by a small margin in the first match to come back and win overall by getting a better score in the second match.)
So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule? By gosh, I think it is possible. What do you think?
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
Last edited by DougHogg : 26-04-2003 at 20:30.
|