Offseason Rule Change Recommendations?

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Well, those teams who won all or nearly all of their qualification matches should be rewarded with a fairly substancial advantage. For some events, depending on the distribution of teams (where teams 16 and 17 may be better than teams 2 and 24), it may be better to be seeded 8th. I don't think it is fair that a team who lost more gets an advantage.

The problem with the 1-8 1-8 is that the top 8 seeded teams are not always in the best teams. I don't think having a 1-8, 8-1 selection is the correct answer to solving the problem. It's more of a band-aid to the problem. The only way to fix the fact that 'bad' teams seed high is more qualification matches. Increase the sample size and you will get better results.

I would love more qualification matches. I think that even with 70 some matches at some Regionals, there are not enough. I feel that 7 games is not enough to display who you really are. Some teams get dragged down by bad alliances, like 423 did on the first day of Philly this year, while some bad teams get held up by good alliances when in fact their robot isn't very good, like 423's alliance captain in Trenton this year.

Plus, more qualifying matches would mean longer competitions. That means less school and more robotics!