why doesn't FIRST have 3rd place?

[Bob Steele]

For the same reason that NCAA basketball doesn't do a "third" place game anymore in the Final Four. What is the point?
There really isn't time and it would take away from the excitement of the Finals to have other robots that have already lost competing.

That time belongs to the finalists...

I have never understood the fascination with knowing who came in third and fourth.... what's next ...play offs for 5th and sixth... and 7th and 8th?

The system is pretty good just the way it is... you are either winner, finalist, semifinalist or quarterfinalist....

[Rizner]

This would be interesting. Even if you just fit it in between the first and second match of the finals it'd give those teams an extra couple minutes between for things too

[Akash Rastogi]

I don't see a point I guess. Consolation matches really aren't fun, do nothing for morale, and would just give a team a title they probably don't want. Who would want to play a consolation match?

[Ziv]

Everyone wants to play more matches. For the price in time and money teams pay, they really should get to play more matches. The solution is far more likely to be found in something like the district system than in making everyone stay longer at an event and get even more tired watching a set of consolation matches between two alliances whose members have already played more matches than most other teams at the event.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by 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.

Events length is limited for more than just student willingness; volunteers and venues themselves are on a time clock. Extra time is extra money: facilities fees, overtime, etc. The work is far from over when most teams clear out: field breakdown, equipment removal, venue cleanup all take time. A couple minutes may not be a big issue in most venues, but all volunteers and managers are acutely aware that hours are made of minutes.

In other words, if there's a real case to be made for taking that extra step--as opposed to another one, several, or none--advocates need to fully understand the resources is requires and the stakeholders it affects. We're all here for the students, but there's more that just that for fallout.

[Brandon_L]

I think this is a great idea. If it would add more time to the overall length of the event, then maybe not so much, but were just sitting around for 10 minutes anyway in between finals so why not? Just add a 'bronze' medal to the award ceremony, or even if its just for funsies I'd enjoy it.

[Peck]

I personally would rather see something like "best of the rookies" or something similar to fill time if time filling is the desire. playing for third feel like playing for last (at least to me).

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Peck

I personally would rather see something like "best of the rookies" or something similar to fill time if time filling is the desire. playing for third feel like playing for last (at least to me).

Don't the Rookie Inspiration, Highest Rookie Seed, and Rookie All-Star awards settle this?

[Peck]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Don't the Rookie Inspiration, Highest Rookie Seed, and Rookie All-Star awards settle this?

hence the line "or something similar". "Best of the rookies" was simply first thing that came to mind. on a side note: remind the rookies to stay till the end or risk not getting the awards/recognition they earned.

[IndySam]

I understand teams want more play but when I am volunteering come Saturday afternoon I'm pretty beat and ready to be done.

You add even more matches and you might have a rebellion on your hands.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by IndySam

You add even more matches and you might have a rebellion on your hands.

Or just less volunteers

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Ziv

Everyone wants to play more matches.

Not after my team just lost.

[Gary.C]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I don't see a point I guess. Consolation matches really aren't fun, do nothing for morale, and would just give a team a title they probably don't want. Who would want to play a consolation match?

Quoted for truth

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I don't see a point I guess. Consolation matches really aren't fun, do nothing for morale, and would just give a team a title they probably don't want. Who would want to play a consolation match?

Apparently winning a Bronze medal at the Olympics is no fun and does nothing for morale? Yeah... but that's just those loser Olympians who want to play consolation matches, eh?

I think there are several practical reasons already mentioned why a third place match isn't required in the FRC format, but irrelevance isn't one of them. In reality it would probably be a pretty fun match to watch, and if we'd been playing a third/fourth final for the past decade or so and someone suggested getting rid of it, there would probably be a huge outcry.

So although I don't see things changing, I'm delighted that there are still people thinking and asking questions that challenge what we do and how we do it.

Jason

[AlexH]

i just think that a 3rd place match would be a better time killer than the chicken dance and cotton eye joe during the "cooldown" period between finals matches.