3 Teams Per Side Too Many?

[Masterfork]

Originally Posted by dmurdz

With FIRST growing so fast 3 vs 3 games are needed and they will most likely been seen for years to come, they would have to decrease the amount of matches played or add a day to competitions or make the day longer, FIRST is just growing so much.

I like the 3 vs 3 games because new methods of strategies are uncovered and there is more action on the field.

well its not too bad but there is way too much luck involved but it could be fixed by having more matches which would lower the chance of a bad team up on top who really doesn't deserve it

[ben281]

hey everyone,
does anyone actually know how many games were played per team at nats last year? i seem to remember 6 or 7 but someone said 5. do you think that first needs to run the matches later in the day to fit more in? Unfortunately 1 more game per team equals another 15 matches for a division of 85 teams. At least everyone seems to agree that we need more matches no matter how many teams per side there are. tell me what you think! : )
Ben
TEAM 281

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by ben281

does anyone actually know how many games were played per team at nats last year?

2004 had:

• 73 teams per division
• 7 matches per team