|
Re: Rule 8.4.1
Yes, luck is assossiated with who gets what seed, but by no measure is it a RANDOM selection. This year especially with the 3 vs 2 defensive scheme during the defense period, a single robot can and WILL have a MASSIVE effect on the outcome of the game. If, for example, no robot can shoot, the defense will just plug up the two corner goals, but if there is a bot that can shoot effectively, the defense would either have to leave a corner goal exposed, or let that bot shoot to its heart's desire.
The #1 team EARNED their spot, no question about it. Most regional competitions it will not have a huge effect on the game, but the regionals on either end of the spectrum it will. The deepest events the #7-8 seeded teams will have a chance at getting two "elite" robots to accompany them on the field, then the the upper half of alliance captains will most likely fall off to the "great/good" bots, but not "elite". (I think you can get my point).
Similarly, at the smallest regionals the "great/good" level of robots may run out after the 6,7,8 alliances get their 2nd pick.
And finally, there was NO NEED for this change to occur. The #1 alliances DID NOT steamroll everyone. There have been plenty of occurances where the 7th and 8th seeded alliances have beaten their opponents in the quarterfinals, and even more where the #1/2 seeds have lost in the semis or finals. As the #7 alliance @ VCU in 2004, we beat the #2 alliance (which had an eventual world champion Team 435 in it). And if it weren't for two unforunate tippings (including our first of the season, in which our wheely bar broke, and one that incapacitated an alliance partner) we may well have also beaten the #3 alliance, and eventual regional champions captained by Team 33. In 2005, the #8 alliance in Richmond reached the finals (and 447 would again go on to, as the #8 alliance, reach the finals in their other two competitions that year, including championship). Thats two straight years in the same regional that a "bottom 2" alliance has won in the quarterfinals.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.
|
To the best engineers, scientists, and thinkers, something that is "hard" isn't something to avoid; it is something that begs for us to prove that we can do it. STEM is built on the very idea of trying something, failing, and trying something different. - Bryan Herbst [more] 
Threaded Mode
