why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?

[AlexH]

i've wondered about this for the past couple of years. there's a champion, and a finalist but the two semifinalists that lose seem to share a joint 3rd place.

why doesn't FIRST use the dead time during the guaranteed 10 minutes in between the finals matches to determine a 3rd place alliance?

[Nemo]

Interesting idea. They could make it a single game rather than best of three to have a 3rd place winner with practically no impact on the event length.

[MrTechCenter]

I think the way teams determine the "3rd Place Winner" is whichever of the two semifinalist alliances was a higher seed.

[Anupam Goli]

I'd personally like to see something like that. Maybe the third place teams gets some consolation medals? I'd definitely think it would be awesome to see at the regional level.

[MARS_James]

Maybe it is just the teams I talk to but usually we say 3rd place is who ever lost to the Winning Alliance in the Semi-finals

[iyermihir]

That alliance is usually a lower seed than the alliance that lost in the other side of the bracket. I do not see how this is a good indicator of which alliance is better.

[Walter Deitzler]

I think that time might play a big factor in this, especially at a championship. Matches often run late, and, by running another set of matches, you are tightening down the time constraints even more. I would personally like to see a third place match, but the time constraints are already tight.

[Anupam Goli]

Well, there is usually a lot of time between the semifinals and the finals. It could be run just like an ordinary match in this case, or run between finals matches.

[dcarr]

While it might make it easier to explain to outsiders how well you did, I don't really see any other benefits to determining a third place. We were semifinalists in LA...being called '3rd place' would have made no difference.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Wing

Well, there is usually a lot of time between the semifinals and the finals.

If there is - and there doesn't have to be - there would be just as much time between the semifinals and the 3rd place match.

[dk5sm5luigi]

Originally Posted by Wing

Well, there is usually a lot of time between the semifinals and the finals.

That time is because you are guaranteed at least five minutes between matches. Adding a third place match will add 10 minutes to the day and that is only if you play one match. Doing best 2 out of 3 could add up to a half hour and that is a lot of time to determine something that really doesn't matter.
Nick

[Peter Matteson]

We always refer to the the allaince that went to 3 matches as 3rd place if the other side went 2 and out for ease of explaining it.
I don't think there's really a bennefit to doing it officially.
The time cycle for most games in the past has usally made it so clean up and breakdown of the fields pushes it close to when we are supposed to be out of venues. I think this would just drag out the wait for awards.

Also look at most major sports, football, baseball, basketball (NCAA tournament too) and hockey where when you're out that's it. There is no need to find a 3rd place because all that the people want to see is the champion.

[IndySam]

Why does it matter who came in third? There is no award for third or forth or anything other than 1st and runner up.

Until this thread I have never even heard it brought up?

[Will Andrews]

I had been wondering why this hasn't been established yet. Teams should get to play in as many matches as possible considering the investment required to register for an event. I don't think anyone would get upset if they used a little more than the breaks between the finals to play.

[JustinRueb1891]

While I don't think a 3rd place is necessary, I think it would be fun to have another set of matches to watch at competition. I don't think any students have a problem spending a little more time at FRC competitions, and speaking from experience as perpetual semifinalists, being able to have that one last shot at an award would be really nice.

Overall, is it necessary? No. Practical? Maybe not. Would it be fun for all involved and a great experience for one more team per regional? Yes, yes it would.