CoOpertition or Ranking Bridge?

[Dave McLaughlin]

In my eyes it is the control removal bridge, chaos inducer bridge, or collusion bonus bridge. In previous years it was clear that winning a match was the only way to guarantee that you'd have the best odds at seeding high. In nearly all cases winning or losing a match is something that your team and, as an extension, the robot you have built have a good degree of control over. Additionally, a win is often rewarded to the team who's robots plays the game with the greatest ability.

In the case of this year, a team who is unable to field a robot for the entirety of a regional has the potential to seed above all other participating teams. While the odds of this are slim, this scenario demonstrates what is in my opinion an underlying flaw to the ranking system. To continue, teams have also lost the ability to control half of the available ranking points possible during each match. So, in another scenario, an undefeated robot whose opposing alliance was always unable, or unwilling, to cooperate, could likely seed below teams with multiple losses whose opposition had been more able or agreeing.

I understand that the widely accepted message of first is that the robot is just a vehicle, and the competition is merely a celebration of all that has been accomplished. But this is, after all, a robot competition. And as such it is my belief that this competition should celebrate those who play the game with the greatest skill. The CoOpertition bridge often affords an opportunity to an opposing team to snub someone based on personal vendetta, peer pressure, or whatever else.