I was thinking about what if FIRST created a “Loser’s bracket” (Doubt they would call it that but I cant come up with a better name yet) for the losers of semis and maybe even quarters. Basically how it would work is the losers of semi’s will do their own match for 3rd place, and if they wanted to take it further the losers of quarters could do the same. This isn’t very useful for regionals but for districts it could give losing teams the chance at more district points, for the people at regionals how it works currently is you get 10 points each time you advance (30 at district champs), my proposed “loser’s bracket” would mean that the loser’s of semis compete for 3rd place and the winner of that gains an extra 5 district points, and if they did the same for the losers of quarters they would get 5 DP. The reason I think this should be implemented is to give the losing teams more matches, to make loses not feel so final or heartbreaking in a way, and it would also mean that if you’re in one of the lower alliances and your chances of losing is much higher you still have a chance to get some points. Idk what do you guys think about something like this?
event length but i would love a double elimination losers bracket with best of 1 matches
For district events (where everything is already on an immensely tight schedule, packed into very long days) can we PLEASE not add things that will add an additional hour (if not two) to the last day.
One of our events this year I was up for 20 hours straight between driving to the event, the event itself, and then driving home again. I couldn’t imagine drawing that day out even longer
This post talks about it a lot.
Personally, I think that double elimination would be an improvement, especially for 4th, 5th and 8th seeded alliances who almost always get killed by the 1st seeded alliance. It would be nice to have best of 3 finals, and if the team from the loser’s bracket wins the bracket is “reset” for another best of 3. It would be the same minimum number of games for each team, while allowing lower ranked teams a chance to earn wildcards.
I figured this would take place during what would normally be timeout time before the matches, but I understand the sentiment that it would make the competition even longer than it already is, that’s why I think they should probably just do a 3rd place bracket
I saw that before too and I think it could be nice but I feel it might make things way more complicated then they need to be, a simple match for 3rd place would be simpler but less of a fix
Agreed that a 3rd place bracket happening before and after finals 1 could likely be worked in rather easily between finals matches without drawing the day out much longer (if any). Initially I thought of it in my head as an entire other bracket/series of matches happening before finals, delaying the whole event.
Biggest issue I see with the 3rd place bracket happening before and after finals 1, is what happens if said bracket goes to a third match and finals don’t? I suppose you could do the 3rd play before finals 2, but now you need a field timeout between matches, drawing the event out again. If you play finals 2 before the 3rd place brackets tie-breaker match, and finals 2 results in a 2-0 win, now you have to clear the event winners off the field quickly to prepare for another match. And that seems rather anti-climactic.
I don’t want to drastically increase the amount of time that events take but if they did the third place match between finals 1 and finals 2 to give some breathing room to the teams in finals I’d be for it (I’m thinking one match winner takes 3rd place). I don’t know how I feel about the quarter finalists and stuff because I can see that really start to add a lot of time. I didn’t read the other thread so if this is repeating sentiment there I apologize.
Way back in the pre-alliance days (prior to 1999) we did this via a double elimination tournament. When they went to 8 alliances that year it made sense to go to a traditional bracket because most of the teams were involved in playoffs at that point.
My opinion is that anything other than a 3/4 match used to entertain the crowd between the finals would take too long these days when the tournament portion of events already drags on a bit and we are running up on time to clear out of venues.
I love the idea of a double elimination / consolation round playoff. My only question is what do we do with it? Districts might alter the point allotment a tiny bit, but regionals aren’t going to qualify any more teams for champs. It feels like it would be mostly for fun / bragging rights (which might be enough by itself).
It would be another cool talking point we ranked third at X qualifier or what not
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.