What First is missing.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by EricH

In 2001, FIRST didn't just prohibit the top 8 from picking each other. They REQUIRED it. There were only 4 alliances of 5 teams in the eliminations (1 backup team), but at regionals, the top 4 were assigned the next 4, in order. (At Nationals, it was the top 2 in a division.) Rumors of match-fixing (in a 4v0, it's not throwing) to drop out of the top 8 abounded, by all accounts. Or to secure your position within the top 8.

And this I did not know should have read up on my FIRST history I suppose lol...thank you for the info on this. And I can completely see your point about match fixing. Having only had experience with the selection process for the past six years this seemed like a good idea when I first considered it however if past history has proven otherwise then it should be removed from consideration.

Another idea that occured to me (after I submitted the post) came from the realm of sports drafting. In that world the team with the worst record chooses first. So in this scenario the #8 seed would choose first and the #1 seed would choose last. Basically I am proposing reversing the selection process. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by EricH

Not allowing a team to compete as an AC when they've earned the spot by seeding is problematic. Do you treat it as a decline, and bar the team from eliminations altogether? (insert your own uproar here) Do you prevent them from being a captain, but allow them to be picked? (Guess who will probably be in one of the top 3 alliances by selection.) Do you force them to be a 2nd-round pick? (See above, but now it's bottom 3.) If the team chooses not to compete as an AC, then presumably they've withdrawn from competition--but that's their choice to make.

I should have explained better. In my head (like most things it always sounds better in my head ) they would be available for selection just not an AC. Maybe I have built up the position of AC as having more 'power'(?) than it really does because of the selection process. I don't want them out of the top 8 totally as they are extremely valuable partners and can absolutely help another alliance advance to regionals.

Originally Posted by EricH

As far as the multi-event winners and the single-event teams, I think the solution is coming. District events give each team two events (and thus two chances for that banner, playing against different teams most likely). The Wild Card gives Championship bids to teams who do very well but come up just short when a multi-event winner is playing already.

Interesting, I know District events are out there but have had no direct dealings with them or understanding of how they actually work. I have heard rumblings of Texas perhaps shifting to a District set up but no real concrete information. I will have to do some more research on how the District setup works because that would definately nullify the ideas posted above.