The weird Einstein finals streak

As we’ve split into two championships I’ve noticed a pattern…

In 2017,
Houston had 973, 1011, 2928, and 5499 as the blue alliance beat the red alliance 118, 1678, 4188, 5892
St. Louis had 2767, 254, 862, 1676 as the blue alliance beat the red alliance 1986, 3310, 302, 3719

2018
Houston 254, 148, 2976, and 3075 as the red alliance beat the blue alliance in 4911, 2910, 4499, and 5006
Detroit 2767, 27, 2708, 4027 as the red alliance beat the blue alliance 217, 3357, 4967, 4130

Both 2017 and 2018 all had gone out in straight matches

2019
Houston: The blue alliance of 973, 1323, 5026, and 4201 lost the first match then reverse swept the red alliance of 254, 3310, 6986, and 498
Detroit: The Blue alliance of 217, 3707, 4481, and 1218 lost the first match then reverse swept the red alliance of 5406, 930, 1310, and 4004
Notice a pattern? Also weird thing both Einstein final 1 in 2018 had a dead bot.

12 Likes

It’s like the universe is telling us we should have #onechamps

It’s the echo from splitting the FRC universe.

54 Likes

Must be some way to leverage this entanglement for FTL communication.

1 Like
10 Likes

OMG…I notice the pattern now… they keep trying to tell us we have TWO world champion winning alliances when we all *very clearly * know there is only supposed top be one. :wink:

Don’t forget that in 2017 the Einstein finals at both events featured the same teams as the final round robin match.

1 Like

I must be incredibly daft because I am not picking up on a pattern what so ever.

The pattern is whoever won on Einstein in Houston based on their alliance color will won in Detroit

So, who’s up for some prop bets on Detroit 2020, to be announced after Houston 2020?

(somewhat joking, but…)

3 Likes

A 3rd championship only for the teams that made it to playoffs in both Worlds. Not sure if they should have a qualifications or if they should just keep the same alliances.

3 Likes

FoC in 2017, Bo5, but only the winning alliances (with one substitution per an allowed procedure).

If I was going to do something like that, I’d say to keep the alliances, run a play-in round, Houston vs Detroit, with a subdivision from Houston playing against a subdivision from Detroit, Bo3. Then run a round-robin and Bo5 the winners.

1 Like

12 divisions, 32 teams each

Oh, you mean full playoffs. Um… let’s go with “way too big of a hassle”.

We’re talking the size of Atlanta (or the early years of St. Louis). 8 divisions would have 48 teams each, but give a better bracket than 12. 4 divisions would be nearly a hundred which is way too many.

If we’re talking finalists and above, then it’s a lot more doable–split the resulting 100 teams or so into two divisions of 50 (mixed between the CMPs, otherwise you may as well just keep alliances and play a 24-team bracket of some form), play a day and a half of quals, and then play playoffs.

I recall talking to some of the guys on 2767 about FOC in 2017. While I don’t remember the comments they made exactly, the overall consensus was that that the event was just bit too much for the teams, as it essentially extended their season another 7 weeks to prepare. Hopefully, someone who was on one of the FOC alliances can chime in.

I love FRC, but even for me, a 15 week competition season terminating in such a high-stakes event sounds like the epitome of pain. Even if it’s just a few weeks after champs, a whole lot of students are all cramming for AP/IB tests, and more FRC on top of that is going to hurt.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go browse Chief Delphi instead of cramming for AP tests.

6 Likes