2016 Einstein

[rpappa]

As someone who was rooting for 3015 and 2056's alliance (3015 because I'm close with them and 2056 because who didn't want to see them win champs after losing their first regional) it was crushing to see the match be won despite the score saying there was a tie.

In almost any other competition, a tie would be decided by extra play time. FIRST is becoming, for sure, a spectator sport. I know many people came to watch my team's events, with only a shallow knowledge of how the game works, because it is easy to understand on a general level. The team with the most points was considered the winner of the match. The teams that did the best overall, had the advantage going into eliminations. If the number eight seed scored higher than the number one seed, it was considered an upset, and was quite exciting.

So, in interest of FIRST being more appetizing to the general public, I feel like the situation should be addressed. Anyone not familiar with the rules would be honestly confused as to why there was the word "winner" under the red alliance despite each alliance earning 225 points, a confusion which I saw first hand as I was watching from home with a small group. The idea of a champion is already muddled enough, with a fourth team that may or may not contribute to an alliance winning, and with championship splitting into two events next year. Now, when you are calling four teams the "best in the world" based off one line located in 100+ pages of game manual, this definition becomes even more confusing.

The score says we have two evenly matched teams. It would be satisfying to know that one is truly better than the other based off more than just a technicality.