New vs old schedule advantages

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Every year I hear some one say "this team had a bad showing at a regional because they had a really tough schedule" or "they slipped through the cracks because their schedule was easy, and landed in the top 8." This year I havn't really heard any of this talk. So does the new ranking system fix the "easy schedule" debockle? or have I just been under a rock this season?

Yes and no.

It does eliminate the factor of having one or two really tough matches all but eliminate your chances of being a top 3-4 seed (which are often occupied by undefeated or one-loss teams, especially at events which only run 7-10 matches). You can lose a match or two and still have a shot at the top seed.
On the other hand, it can weight a single match more heavily than it should be (a really big seeding score in a single match can often result in a massive rankings jump). A "fluke" match with good partners (and/or opponents) can result in huge rankings boosts for an average or sub-par team.
And beyond eliminating the detriment of a small set of matches being "tough," if an entire schedule is difficult, it still harms the teams' standings. The 5 bonus seeding points for winning and the coopertition bonus are large seeding factors. And especially with upper caliber robots that can actually lower their opponents' scores by "fighting" for balls, it can be difficult to seed well with several losses.

More than anything, I think the current ranking system (its' not a scheduling system) just redefines what a "bad" schedule is. It doesn't fix it.

If there is any perceived improvement to the standings (which is a debate, not a fact), it may also have to do with the larger quantity of matches being ran at many events (as mentioned with the promise to strive for 10+ matches in Bill's Blog). Most events are running at least 9 matches/team, and a very large amount are surpassing even the 10.