Does 9.3.5 Match Ranking make sense?

[soap108]

9.3.5 says
"All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the unpenalized
score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE."

Let's assume Red scores 35-25=10 and Blue scores 20-5=15.

Clearly, Blue wins 15-10.

Now, according to the rule above Blue gets 35 ranking points.

Question: Does it make sense for Blue to get 35 and not MIN(35,20)=20.

Your thoughts,
KA-108

[Ericgehrken]

Yes it does make sense because the match ranking system is to promote close matches and not 100-0 victories. But if the losing alliance gets fifty penalty points then the winning alliance shouldn't be penalized in the standings for say the losing alliance breaking the plane of the playing field.

[Matt_Kaplan1902]

I think that it makes sense because they won the match and why should the winning alliance have to suffer with lower ranking points when it was the other alliance breaking the rules. It might look weird getting more points than they had scored, but it makes sense to me.

[MikeDubreuil]

The Ranking Points formula has never made a lot of sense to me. I wish someone from FIRST would explain the theory behind it.

Here's the formula that makes the most sense to me:
Ranking Points = (Opponents unpenalized score) - (Your penalties)

This formula awards teams playing against tough opponents. It also penalizes teams who win matches with bad behavior.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Here's the formula that makes the most sense to me:
Ranking Points = (Opponents unpenalized score) - (Your penalties)

This formula awards teams playing against tough opponents. It also penalizes teams who win matches with bad behavior.

Bad behavior meaning putting tubes up for your losing opponent? I can see a time where an alliance gets penalized 80+ points for putting up tubes...

I know we've beaten this topic to death in multiple threads, so I'm going to have to say that this year's match ranking makes sense. Its very simplistic (which, btw, isn't bad), and its tie breaking method still calls for close matches.