5.4.3 Playoff Advancement
Eight (8) ALLIANCES will play two (2) MATCHES each during the Quarterfinals. The top four (4) Quarterfinal ALLIANCES advance to the Semi-Finals where they each play three (3) more MATCHES. The top two (2) Semi-Final ALLIANCES advance to the Finals where the winning ALLIANCE is determined.
…
In the Quaterfinals, the ALLIANCES with the four (4) highest Average Scores after two (2) MATCHES will advance. In the Semi-Finals, the ALLIANCES with the two (2) highest Average Scores after three (3) MATCHES will advance.
…
5.4.4 Playoff MATCH Format
The Playoff MATCHES take place following the completion of the Qualification MATCHES and the ALLIANCE selection process. Playoff MATCHES are played as shown in Figure 5 2, ALLIANCE One, ALLIANCE Two, etc. are abbreviate A1, A2, etc.
In order to allow time between MATCHES for all ALLIANCES, the order of play is as follows:
■ Round 1: QF1 (A4 vs. A5), QF2 (A3 vs. A6), QF3 (A2 vs. A7), QF4 (A1 vs. A8)
■ Round 2: QF5 (A4 vs. A6), QF6 (A3 vs. A5), QF7 (A2 vs. A8), QF7 (A1 vs. A7),
Any additional Quarter-Final MATCHES due to ties*
■ Round 1: SF1 (Q2 vs. Q3), SF2 (Q1 vs. Q4),
■ Round 2: SF3 (Q2 vs. Q4), SF4 (Q1 vs. Q3)
■ Round 3: SF5 (Q3 vs. Q4), SF6 (Q1 vs. Q2)
Any additional Semi-Final MATCHES due to ties*
■ F-1, F-2, F-3*
Any additional Final MATCHES due to ties*
IF REQUIRED.
…
5.6.3 FRC Championship MATCH Bracket
The figure below details the order in which MATCHES are played during the Championship Playoffs. The winning ALLIANCES from each of the Subdivision Fields are abbreviated F1, F2, etc.
In order to allow time between MATCHES for all ALLIANCES, the order of play is as follows:
■ Round 1: QF1-1 (F4 vs. F5), QF2-1 (F2 vs. F7), QF3-1 (F3 vs. F6), QF4-1, (F1 vs. F8)
■ Round 2: QF1-2 (F4 vs. F6), QF2-2 (F2 vs. F8), QF3-2 (F3 vs. F5), QF4-2 (F1 vs. F7),
Any additional Quarter-Final MATCHES due to ties*
■ Round 1: SF1-1 (Q2 vs. Q3), SF2-1 (Q1 vs. Q4),
■ Round 2: SF1-2 (Q2 vs. Q4), SF2-2 (Q1 vs. Q3)
■ Round 3: SF1-3 (Q3 vs. Q4), SF2-2 (Q1 vs. Q2)
Any additional Semi-Final MATCHES due to ties*
■ F-1, F-2, F-3*
Any additional Final MATCHES due to ties*
IF REQUIRED.
I found nothing in the manual about ‘Subdivision’ names (i.e. Archimedes, Currie, Galileo, Newton, etc) except for “Einstein FieldS” (emphasis on the plural mine). Does anyone know if these new ‘Subdivisions’ will have names?
This in addition to the new ranking system, what do you think of this new playoff schedule.
I understand how this is going to be done. It is interesting that for semi finals all alliances get to play three matches and you get to average 3 scores (edited…my bad). In quarters you play 2 matches and you average the 2 to get your average score.
What I feel is difficult about the game and its format is that there is only one “winning” alliance ever. Qualification matches only result in scores…2 Alliances simply are on the field at the same time… with the possibility of Coopertition points but no other interaction. This is much the same as FLL except in FLL there are single teams and not alliances and only your BEST score gets counted towards the result.
While having no winners or losers might be a good thing for younger kids I think it is a loss for our competitions.
Many teams that participate can always look back to a particular match …perhaps against or with a “powerhouse” team and use that “win” as an incentive. It might make a team’s day or year to just be part of an alliance that beats a powerhouse. With this system it just comes down to a score.
Perhaps they won a match during qualifications or semifinals…or took another alliance to 3 matches… all of that excitement is now gone with this system… we are reduced to just numbers… “average scores”
Our team will approach this game with our normal vigor and GP but I think something will be missing. The dynamics of winning and losing were a special part of matches in the past. You could congratulate the winner or the loser after a match. It taught teams how to win or how to lose…
This method, simply trying to score high to increase your average match score just doesn’t have the excitement of winning and losing.
As I said… in our competitions we teach students that EVERYONE is a winner. I agree with this… but now there are not even any “little” wins…
At least the competition ends up with a winning alliance for the FINALS with the possibility of a 3rd match. (edited)
A good little “defensive” robot (box on wheels) won’t play much of a part in this game… It can do some things… but its role is really diminished.
Good luck to everyone this year!! We will learn a lot and compete the best we can… students will be inspired… and life will go on… We will make the best of what we have been tasked with…
I agree with most of Bob’s post about the motivational & inspirational benefits of winning or losing individual matches, but I’m also looking forward to seeing how this game develops both in play and tournament feel.
It was a good decision to keep the Finals as straight win-loss.
The best feature is that, in principle, the top two alliances meet in the final rather than the best teams from each side of the Alliance bracket. I’ve never seen a Alliance 1 vs Alliance 8 final before! (Although some offseason events uses double-elimination repecharge)
From a logistics standpoint it’s also great that the number of Playoff matches is very predictable: 16 or 17 depending on the finals rather than 14-21 of the past few years (even more in years with frequent ties - Breakaway anyone?).
I’m not trying to be pedantic but in semi-finals the average score of all 3 matches are ranked, not just the best 2 of 3.
I’m not trying to be pedantic but in semi-finals the average score of all 3 matches are ranked, not just the best 2 of 3.
Of course you are correct! My bad…
I am just not sure why it was OK to do everything else by average score but not the finals… I guess it was so everything could march on a predictable schedule until the finals. After all of the tie breakers I would be extremely surprised if they still end up with any ties in quarters or semis…
In my summer robotics class competition I always used a double elimination tournament which could allow a team to come up through the losers bracket to win. They did have to win twice in the final to do it though… I guess this is the:
full double-elimination repechage. The winners bracket winner vs the loser bracket winner in the final.
In the Quaterfinals, the ALLIANCES with the four (4) highest Average Scores after two (2) MATCHES will advance. In the Semi-Finals, the ALLIANCES with the two (2) highest Average Scores after three (3) MATCHES will advance.
So does this mean that more than one alliance can advance from the same QF match? I.E. can A1 and A8 both make it to the semi finals?
One consequence of this is that no one will know who is playing the first match of semis until the quarters are all done. And likewise while advancing to the finals.
At least we don’t have to worry about changing bumper colors!
