|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds
Posted by Ron Partridge, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison/Entergy/Pilgrim Station.
Posted on 3/16/99 3:01 PM MST In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by brian beatty on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST: : Joe: While I agree with most of your logic, I tend to disagree with your overall conclusion. Yes, more qualifying rounds will tend more accurately determine who the best 8 machines are on that day. Yes, I wish there were more rounds just because it is more fun than 4 or 5 rounds. Without going into a thesis on your mathematics, yes, there is a chance(almost a certainty) that at least one of the teams in the top 8 is not a top 8 team. But, here is what I think will happen. : : 1. 5 of the top 8 teams will be top 16 teams. : 2. Of the 8 picked teams, all will be in the top 16 teams. : 3. Of the 3 non-top 8 teams, they will be in the top 30%. : : In conclusion, this elimination match(quarterfinals) will be the toughest, most competitive one seen to date. Compare this to last year, an early loss meant relegation to the loser's bracket, which then meant your team needed to be a Houdini to pull one off( just ask Wildstang, Baxter Bomb Squad, and some team that won three Regionals but can't remember their name). Sorry Joe, while I dearly wish for more matches, you will see many teams that should be in it resurrected from the "loser's" bracket that under the old system would never have got the opportunity. : Sincerely, : Brian Beatty : |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds
Posted by Ron Partridge, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison/Entergy/Pilgrim Station.
Posted on 3/16/99 3:45 PM MST In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by brian beatty on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST: I also would have liked to see more qualifying rounds in Philly. Everyone could see the better teams rising to the top as the matches progressed. However, the "draft" in this years game is the great equilizer. Many good teams never made the play-offs before, but now a smart and well informed top 8 team will be looking at all the matches for the best alliance partner. Every team and every match is important to the outcome of the top 8. Teamwork is the battle cry for this year's game and if some of the rookies and lesser known schools make it to the top, great! Building an engineer's dream robot will not win this years competition. It will be the two teams who work together and understand how two different robots can complement each other. It always takes time to learn how to play the game every year and this year the real game is picking the right draft choice! Good Luck, Ron Partridge |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not as bad as we think?
Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.
Posted on 3/16/99 12:04 PM MST In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST: I’m not sure, but I think FIRST may be a little more clever than we are giving them credit for. I was not in Philly with the Bobcat, but from the video I saw and some pictures on WPI’s page, I am pretty sure that team 177 played against at least two teams twice in our 6 seeding matches. There is a post below that says the same thing happened at KSC "How Random is Random?". Based on those two observations and nothing more, I wonder if this is what is happening: FIRST recognizes that the field is too big for a small number of seeding matches to produce the "real" top 8 teams when the picks are completely random (your opponent/partner could be anyone in the tournament at any time). To combat this, they randomly break the field up into several smaller groups that end up playing more of a round robin format. In these smaller groups, the best teams should be able rack up a respectable scoring average even in only 4,5, or 6 seeding matches. Obviously, this is not as good as having a large number of seeding matches, but it is better than everything being "completely random" I may be way off base here, but I thought I’d throw this idea out for everyone to kick around. Good luck everybody! P.J. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| More teams in the elimination rounds | DougHogg | General Forum | 16 | 27-04-2003 16:11 |
| Match Pairings not random (not even close!) | Norm M. | General Forum | 74 | 31-03-2003 08:22 |
| What's the best qualifying rounds strategy? | Ken Leung | General Forum | 24 | 24-03-2002 18:25 |
| "Regional Competition Edition" of Fresh From the Forum | Ken Leung | CD Forum Support | 5 | 21-03-2002 08:21 |
| 4 practice rounds | Madison | Rules/Strategy | 2 | 08-01-2002 00:01 |