|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Sure they do.
There's all KINDS of "standard CD arguments" to restart, for one thing. There's also robots to tune for offseason events. Can't forget planning what they aren't going to get done this summer (AKA, "summer project"). And that's just on the robot side; I'm ignoring the rest of life here! |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
What would happen if everyone at a tournament declined a pick from the number one seed? It would never happen because people outside the top 8 would want to make sure they play in playoffs but if all the teams decline then no alliances can be formed. Who would qualify for worlds? No one?
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
And I'd rather suspect that the guidance would indicate to run selections again... probably with some announcement about how you need a full set of teams... |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
In the end, though, this is purely theoretical. No reasonable team below 15th position would decline an invitation to an alliance should they want to play in elims, as fun as theorizing about such a situation would be. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
I remember a situation where the #2 seed was "lucky" during qualifications to be on strong alliances.
I can envision where #2 selected #3-#8, and they all declined. #3 then goes to team NNNN, who accepts (otherwise they are out of the playoffs). Let's say that #3 also wanted NNNN. #3 could select NNNN (NNNN had not yet declined), and NNNN would rather play with #3 because #2 is not so good. Finding loopholes in the rules is not against "gracious professionalism". GP is fiercely competing while treating others with "respect and kindness". NNNN going to the #3 alliance is "fierce competition". It is no more "disrespectful" or "unkind" to Seed #2 than Seeds #3-#8 declining, and what team XXXX feels when they are not selected by anyone. Last edited by rich2202 : 17-05-2016 at 15:19. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
Which leads to an interesting example: let's take your example a step further and make #1 choose #3 as well as their first pick. Who is now captain of the #3 alliance if #3 accepts? Is it the #4 seed or team NNNN? |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
![]() In any case this (picking teams that have already been picked) is an interesting conundrum. I'm surprised it's taken this long to think of at all. However I would argue that this is an actual situation where a team would be non-GP (for once), as you would be poaching teams from other alliances. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
I would consider alliance captains to have been "invited" by the ranking system and thus be unavailable to be picked again. This interpretation works with the option of a potential alliance captain to "decline" the opportunity and choose not to participate in the playoffs.
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Could alliance picks go this way
Quote:
![]() "1678 has already been-" "lol don't care" |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|