i’ve wondered about this for the past couple of years. there’s a champion, and a finalist but the two semifinalists that lose seem to share a joint 3rd place.
why doesn’t FIRST use the dead time during the guaranteed 10 minutes in between the finals matches to determine a 3rd place alliance?
Interesting idea. They could make it a single game rather than best of three to have a 3rd place winner with practically no impact on the event length.
I think the way teams determine the “3rd Place Winner” is whichever of the two semifinalist alliances was a higher seed.
I’d personally like to see something like that. Maybe the third place teams gets some consolation medals? I’d definitely think it would be awesome to see at the regional level.
Maybe it is just the teams I talk to but usually we say 3rd place is who ever lost to the Winning Alliance in the Semi-finals
That alliance is usually a lower seed than the alliance that lost in the other side of the bracket. I do not see how this is a good indicator of which alliance is better.
I think that time might play a big factor in this, especially at a championship. Matches often run late, and, by running another set of matches, you are tightening down the time constraints even more. I would personally like to see a third place match, but the time constraints are already tight.
Well, there is usually a lot of time between the semifinals and the finals. It could be run just like an ordinary match in this case, or run between finals matches.
While it might make it easier to explain to outsiders how well you did, I don’t really see any other benefits to determining a third place. We were semifinalists in LA…being called ‘3rd place’ would have made no difference.
If there is - and there doesn’t have to be - there would be just as much time between the semifinals and the 3rd place match.
That time is because you are guaranteed at least five minutes between matches. Adding a third place match will add 10 minutes to the day and that is only if you play one match. Doing best 2 out of 3 could add up to a half hour and that is a lot of time to determine something that really doesn’t matter.
Nick
We always refer to the the allaince that went to 3 matches as 3rd place if the other side went 2 and out for ease of explaining it.
I don’t think there’s really a bennefit to doing it officially.
The time cycle for most games in the past has usally made it so clean up and breakdown of the fields pushes it close to when we are supposed to be out of venues. I think this would just drag out the wait for awards.
Also look at most major sports, football, baseball, basketball (NCAA tournament too) and hockey where when you’re out that’s it. There is no need to find a 3rd place because all that the people want to see is the champion.
Why does it matter who came in third? There is no award for third or forth or anything other than 1st and runner up.
Until this thread I have never even heard it brought up?
I had been wondering why this hasn’t been established yet. Teams should get to play in as many matches as possible considering the investment required to register for an event. I don’t think anyone would get upset if they used a little more than the breaks between the finals to play.
While I don’t think a 3rd place is necessary, I think it would be fun to have another set of matches to watch at competition. I don’t think any students have a problem spending a little more time at FRC competitions, and speaking from experience as perpetual semifinalists, being able to have that one last shot at an award would be really nice.
Overall, is it necessary? No. Practical? Maybe not. Would it be fun for all involved and a great experience for one more team per regional? Yes, yes it would.
For the same reason that NCAA basketball doesn’t do a “third” place game anymore in the Final Four. What is the point?
There really isn’t time and it would take away from the excitement of the Finals to have other robots that have already lost competing.
That time belongs to the finalists…
I have never understood the fascination with knowing who came in third and fourth… what’s next …play offs for 5th and sixth… and 7th and 8th?
The system is pretty good just the way it is… you are either winner, finalist, semifinalist or quarterfinalist…
This would be interesting. Even if you just fit it in between the first and second match of the finals it’d give those teams an extra couple minutes between for things too
I don’t see a point I guess. Consolation matches really aren’t fun, do nothing for morale, and would just give a team a title they probably don’t want. Who would want to play a consolation match?
Everyone wants to play more matches. For the price in time and money teams pay, they really should get to play more matches. The solution is far more likely to be found in something like the district system than in making everyone stay longer at an event and get even more tired watching a set of consolation matches between two alliances whose members have already played more matches than most other teams at the event.
Events length is limited for more than just student willingness; volunteers and venues themselves are on a time clock. Extra time is extra money: facilities fees, overtime, etc. The work is far from over when most teams clear out: field breakdown, equipment removal, venue cleanup all take time. A couple minutes may not be a big issue in most venues, but all volunteers and managers are acutely aware that hours are made of minutes.
In other words, if there’s a real case to be made for taking that extra step–as opposed to another one, several, or none–advocates need to fully understand the resources is requires and the stakeholders it affects. We’re all here for the students, but there’s more that just that for fallout.