Einstein should return to being a Round Robin

Yeah, but then you have something like Archimedes and Millstein, where you only get to see them play two matches before being completely removed from the competition. Regardless of whether or not certain matches mattered, you got to see the divisions play against each other equally.


Double elims was awesome this year at every level of play, including Einstein. So much better when every match is meaningful. Round robin inevitably leads to meaningless matches and that increases with more alliances involved.


If those alliances had won matches, they would have gotten to play more. That’s what it means for matches to be meaningful.

Anyways, it seems like a personal preference so I think all opinions are valid here.


Ranked on most to least California teams?


Just make the matchups of divisions random and do a knockout stage like esports does. I don’t know how every esport does it but the League of Legends world championship has the teams that advance from group stage go into a knockout bracket like this that’s entirely random pairings I believe.

It’s only slightly different because in LOL both first place and second place teams from each group make it to knockout stage.


It is a single elimination bracket drawn randomly

The first-place teams face second-place teams

No two teams from the same group can be placed in the same half of the bracket

All matches are best-of-five (BO5)

Einstein didn’t feel like Einstein this year… Round robin makes it feel like Einstein

EDIT: I will elaborate… the round robin ensure that the best alliances are chosen for the final regardless of bracket strength or luck. In the round robin everyone plays everyone and the best bots win.


BO3 allowed alliance to probe for weakness in their opposing alliance and adapt.

Current double elimination is basically about which alliance has the best ability to predict what their opposing alliance will do given scouting data and then pre-plan.

Personally I like the probe and adapt model.

What if we make it BO3 for the winners bracket with matchings based on a max score each alliance put up during divisional playoffs and then losers bracket is sudden death?


Now that we have 8 divisions of 8 alliances this seems like the perfect opportunity to try out a single elimination 64-team march madness style bracket where the last team standing takes home the banner /s


I suspect that has more to do with what you’ve experienced. I’m relatively sure there were other models for Einstein before Round Robin. It is change and it will make it seem less like Einstein for now, but if we stick with DE, that’ll change with time.


April Absurdity?


Why not just a round robin - but you play 4 of the other alliances rather than all 7? More matches than double elimination, and less than a full round robin


Why not just a round robin - but you play 4 of the other alliances rather than all 7? More matches than double elimination, and less than a full round robin

Do this but do it to decide Semi Finals, so the top 4 teams advance to a BO3 (Or Double Elimination to BO3 Finals, which would actually end up being 1 less match than just pure BO3) based on rankings of Champ Points and the other RR Einstein things and I’ll probably be happy. That’s 14 matches for the RR and a minimum of 6 Matches for the Semi Finals and Finals, with 9 being the max. That means Einstein would have between 20-23 matches which would be doable if they eliminate the RR Timeouts. (DE of the top 4 to a BO3 Finals would have 21 matches minimum, and 22 maximum.)

1 Like

Einstein was better before the round robin and it is better after it as well.


It would be nice to rank the teams based on average score of the winning alliance in their divisions rather than randomly assigning positions. For reference this year would’ve put the beginning of the bracket as:

  1. Hopper
  2. Galileo
  3. Johnson
  4. Daly
  5. Curie
  6. Milstein
  7. Archimedes
  8. Newton

Compared to

  1. Archimedes
  2. Curie
  3. Daly
  4. Galileo
  5. Hopper
  6. Johnson
  7. Milstein
  8. Newton

Round robin but only if it goes back to 6 divisions.

1 Like

This is akin to the “Championship doesn’t feel like Championship unless it’s how it was in my senior year of high school” argument. Naturally, things won’t “feel” like themselves if we experience them one way, and that way switches. But that doesn’t mean the new way is bad–or that it won’t soon feel proper.


Hard pass. I know defense wasn’t a huge thing this year, but some years it is. And in some years, one alliances’ score can be impacted by the abilities of opposing alliances (particularly in years in which there are shared resources that are frequently fought over or scoring elements that are in some way linked between both alliances). Each different division winning alliance will come thru an independent path, with different opponents (and, for that matter, different referees). Using an average score to rank these alliances when they aren’t, for all intents and purposes, competing in the same competition as one another before that point is rife for poor rankings (and in some cases, gamesmanship and/or abuse).


Wouldn’t those poor rankings be at least better than random rankings?

I doubt teams will risk losing in division finals to pump a metric for a different bracket spot… Especially if the other matches are still playing and you don’t have the full information required.


Double Elim (the Bracket of DOOM!), then Bo3 for 4 fields, then Bo3 for 8 fields, THEN Round Robin. The exception was 2015 which was a partial Round Robin for all levels except Finals at all events.


Double elimination and the round robin are two tools with the same objective: get the two best performing alliances from the playoffs into the finals. An eight alliance double elimination manages to meet this objective in two fewer matches than the six alliance round robin. Getting more teams onto Einstein and getting through the tournament faster are things that should be celebrated.