1-41-43

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

That same year, 254 was in the very same position on Curie, where they were in the 53rd place, yet 341 (the 1st seed) took a chance on them as their first pick. I don't think 254 forgot that one.

Objectively speaking we were at worst the third best performing/highest scoring robot in Curie in 2012...we just couldn't get anyone to co-op with us. The situation with 987 picking us in SD last year was much more apt.

[orangemoore]

I think this year you will see many low "ranked" teams win a competition. The ranking system is based off a game that has to do with co-operation, if your alliances partners do not co-operate then it is likely that you will lose, it is up to those people scouting to find the best teams to pick and this year it may be at the bottom of the standings.

The ranking system this year can be a blessing and a curse.

[Josh Greene]

I can attest to good scouting. At CIR this year, my team ranked 34th our of 40 was selected by the #1 alliance. There were many good teams remaining that 525 passed on to select us due to our defense and assisting.

Synergy is extremely important. Also, having the #1 and #3 seeded teams on our alliance did not hurt.

[Dave Scheck]

All this talk of picking based on performance rather than actual rank reminds me of 2009 in Galileo when we picked up 971 as the last pick in the draft as an absolute steal. They were seeded 66 out of 86, but their record definitely didn't reflect their capabilities. Good scouting should never be taken for granted.