Do We have a trend here?

5 rounds to deternine a winner? Think about that. Is that fair to you or your opponent? After so many matches the chances of something breaking, or wearing out, or just shear exhaustion can realy take a toll. So the National Champion is decided by the luckiest team whose had easy matches, and the best robots have all destroyed each other because they have had 3 or four matches more than their luckier opponents.

Think about the nationals where we repeat this in both the division and national titles. I agree the two game only rule last year was bad, but only bcause the score was based on QPs not overall points. If you lost a close first round, it was impossible to recover. If the two matches were based on winning points, there rarely would have to be a third tie breaking match. I strongly suggest the rules for the nationls be changed to make the winner the best 2 out of 3 if the teams split. So first team to win two rounds, or after three games, highest points scored by any team, highest qp by anyteam, coin toss.

We want the most capable robot alliance to win. As it stands now, the best robot to have for the national champion is a battlebot that can hang quickly. It wins by knocking opponents over or disabling them, playing king of the hill, and hanging at the last minute. Opponents a good ball herder? (knock em over) a big ball handler? (knock em over) can hang? (knock em over). As a ref it is really hard to judge intention. Were they trying to prevent the other robot from scoring, or were they malicious? That is an almost impossible call to make.

Having teams play more than three matches to dermine the round is not in anyone's best interest. I don't know how we get the attention of the rules committee on this.