Assuming a 3 vs 3

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

With a 4 vs 0, the game will become much more boring and contain very little scouting/strategizing, well much less then a 3 vs 3.

I agree. 2001 was not a very good year for spectators. And the competitors basically knew who was going to win as soon as the elimination round schedules were announced, barring any disastrous setbacks.

I can't see FIRST returning to 4v0 or any combination of 3 alliances or 3 single teams. 1 and 2 will always gang up on 3 and that's not what FIRST is trying to promote.

On the matter of space on the field for 6 robots, our current field is large enough. Assuming there's nothing like ball drops or ball corralls in the way in the alliance stations, you could fit 3 teams side by side. Now if there's any kind of center structure like last year, 6 teams starts to sound like an awful lot.

As I think Bill Gold pointed out in another thread, it would take relatively little work on FIRST's part to keep the same rectangular field, but extend the player stations to make the field wider.

3v3 would add a whole new element to the game and make us have to think even harder, as well as cooperate better, which is a main goal of FIRST, so I wouldnt be at all surprised to see this in the game come 5 days from now.