How about eight divisions on four fields

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Cory

I kind of fail to see how this is any different than now. You'd still get the same number of matches, but you'd just have half the opportunity to play a variety of teams.

Really, the only main difference is that you'd have 2 Top 8's and therefore 16 alliances that'd play in eliminations from any one field.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Really, the only main difference is that you'd have 2 Top 8's and therefore 16 alliances that'd play in eliminations from any one field.

Effectively making the championship alliances weaker. We dont need any of that.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

Effectively making the championship alliances weaker. We dont need any of that.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Usually, most divisions field at least two or three alliances that are Einstein Worthy. (2008 Galileo Finals Come To Mind). If anything, this would just make the dominant teams more dominate because there's less of them.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Usually, most divisions field at least two or three alliances that are Einstein Worthy. (2008 Galileo Finals Come To Mind). If anything, this would just make the dominant teams more dominate because there's less of them.

Yes, but if Galileo in 2008 had been split in half, there's a 50% chance that both alliances that played in the finals would have not been able to be formed in the first place.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Cory

Yes, but if Galileo in 2008 had been split in half, there's a 50% chance that both alliances that played in the finals would have not been able to be formed in the first place.

I guess this is also true, I was just trying to say that having less teams doesn't always mean that they're going to be of a lesser quality.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I guess this is also true, I was just trying to say that having less teams doesn't always mean that they're going to be of a lesser quality.

The average quality of a division would not decrease, you're correct. However, the average quality of the top 24 in a 40-team division will be lower than the average quality of the top 24 in an 80-team division, because you're talking about a much larger fraction of the teams.

Basically, you'd be making 192 teams go into eliminations rather than 96 like it is now. The 96 additional teams would not have gotten picked with a 4x80 system. They wouldn't have gotten picked because they were perceived as weaker than the teams that did get picked. Because of the draft system, these 96 weaker teams would be spread more or less evenly over all the alliances, thus making the alliances that get to Einstein weaker, especially in their third picks.

Essentially, an Einstein-winning alliance from a 4x80 division setup could probably demolish an Einstein-winning alliance from a 8x40 division setup.

Note: When I say quality in this post, I mean quality as perceived by teams when they go to pick, not the FRC ranking system.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I like it when someone comes up with a new idea. It makes us think outside of the box and possibly, makes things better at the Championship event.

I personlly don't like this idea... don't get me wrong, i like what the OP is trying to do, it's just this idea doesn't really seem to wrok... maybe if it was the other way around (4 Divisions, 8 Fields)

I also think 12 alliance captions with 4 wild cards, or something similar to this (paragraph three) might make the alliances in Atlanta a little more intresting