Week 2 Live Discussion

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions here.
1. With the 1-8, 2-7. etc. System, the two best teams will not necessarily compete in the finals since the 1 seed alliance and 2 seed alliance are not always the best teams. If, for example, #1 seed is the best and #5 seed is the second best, they will face off in the semi-finals and only one will compete in the finals. A great example is the 2014 Curie Division, where the #1 seed Cheesy Poofs went undefeated throughout the division finals, except for one match - Semifinals 1-1 against 118, 359, and 4334. 118 captained the #5 seed alliance, yet I believe they were the second best alliance in the finals. In my opinion, it would have been more exciting had the 254 alliance played the 118 alliance in the finals, which would have happened had the advancement system been like this year.

2. Yes, usually the #1 seed destroys the #8 seed (at least at regionals and districts), but the #8 seed is often better than some of the other alliances. Why should a good #8 seed be knocked out by #1 in the quarterfinals if they are better than 1/2 of the other alliances? With the new system this year, this problem is remedied. At the Indianapolis district event last weekend, the #8 alliance held the highest quarterfinals average (until the last match when #1 got above them), and could have even advanced to the finals if not for a yellow card. Using last year's structure, they would have lost the quarterfinals and been finished simply for having to face the #1 seed first.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The section you quoted is my defense of the 1v8, 2v7, etc... system in a WL game. This section was in response to PhilBot's point 7, specifically, this line:

Originally Posted by PhilBot

I never understood that system designed to maintain the original seed order.

I was merely saying that there is no reasonable alternative to this system if each match has a winner and a loser. If you do know of a better system for these types of games, I would be curious to know what it is, so please share.

[PhilBot]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The section you quoted is my defense of the 1v8, 2v7, etc... system in a WL game. This section was in response to PhilBot's point 7.

I was merely saying that there is no reasonable alternative to this system if each match has a winner and a loser. If you do know of a better system for these types of games, I would be curious to know what it is, so please share.

I appreciate what you are saying. It's what's standard for a WL system. As a totally non-sports person (and I mean NO sports at all), the first time I went to an FRC competition, I expected #1 to play #2, #3 to play #4 and down the line. I understand now that this method makes the top 2 teams mad, because one of them will be eliminated, ahead of a lower team.

What about 1:5, 2:6, 3:7 and 4:8 matchups. This way at least they wouldn't be quite so biased...

But since this isn't likely to happen, I'm ecstatic to see the non win-loss system given a try. This numerical ranking system works for a ton of sports, so why not FIRST.

BTW, FTC does not use the serpentine selection model.
They go 1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4