|
|
|
 FIRST itself is simply a mechanism, not the real goal. - msd [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Little confusing, eh?
Discussion
view entire thread
12-03-2005 23:46
Kyle
Re: pic: Team 20, 173, 230 beat... Team 20, 173, 230
The same thing happened at Pittsburgh today, In the finals it said our alliance beat our own alliance twice, it was really messed up, but still funny.
13-03-2005 00:07
Jay H 237
Re: pic: Team 20, 173, 230 beat... Team 20, 173, 230
As soon as I saw this it reminded me of this thread. 
13-03-2005 04:04
RyanMcE
Re: pic: Team 20, 173, 230 beat... Team 20, 173, 230
I don't know what's going on with FIRST's scoring system. I remember they had all sorts of similar troubles last year. If you go to the Pacific Northwest Regional results page, it says that we won 8, lost two, and are ranked third. But the reality is that we won 9, tied one, and lost none, and were seeded first. Then in the match results, all of the qualification matches disappeared (except Q22, at the very end?!?!), and we can be seen to be playing ourselves (and beating ourselves) TWICE in the finals:
F 1-1:
492, 1595, 604: 49
492, 1595, 604: 23
F 1-2:
492, 1595, 604: 89
492, 1595, 604: 4
Well, at least they got the scores correct... I guess.
I know a lot of teams do scouting for the Championship from these sorts of match results, and beating ourselves doesn't make us look too good. Oh well.
Thanks to 1595 & 604, btw, especially for tying the match that we lost our radio connection to allow us to remain undefeated.
13-03-2005 08:25
Tully
Re: pic: Team 20, 173, 230 beat... Team 20, 173, 230
The best part is that our alliance didn't even play that match I think.
13-03-2005 11:45
raginwitdariz
Re: pic: Team 20, 173, 230 beat... Team 20, 173, 230
you are correct Tully, that was actually the match after we had played.
view entire thread
Tags
loading ...