I think anyone who has payed attention to the discussion between the Best of 1 and Best of 3 systems can see the copious advantages of implementation of Best of 1 at the local level. This system will make time management for Event Partners significantly easier, but more importantly, keeps the introductory-level teams who do not usually make eliminations more engaged.
At any competition, you see people leaving the tournament immediately after qualifications. These are people from teams who did not make eliminations and recognize that they do not have a good shot at winning a judged award, or parents of teams who were eliminated. As one of the slides shown in the Event Partner Summit pointed out, Best of 1 will greatly shorten the duration of eliminations. This should encourage people to stick around a little longer to catch the finals, which should theoretically be the most exciting part of the tournament. Watching finals is also an opportunity for introductory-level teams to see what better teams are doing and reflect on how they can learn from them. At the end of the day, all teams pay the same entry fee, and from a financial standpoint, it is more fair for the beginner teams to not miss out on participating in such a big part of the tournament timewise, and Best of 1 will make that less.
However, even with that example and whatever other positives the REC Foundation, the GDC, and Vex community can come up with, the Best of 1 system inherently disadvantages teams playing at the highest level. To back that up, just look at the numerous other threads on this topic, specifically the one proving that the mathematical probability of the better alliance losing a Best of 1 match is higher than Best of 3.
I would really like the REC Foundation and GDC to consider implementing the Best of 1 system at the local level, but reverting to the traditional Best of 3 system for at Worlds. The point of a World Championship is to determine who the best teams are and crown them World Champions. Using a system that inherently introduces an element of randomness (Best of 1) is undeniably detrimental to that. There are plenty of examples of this from 2018 Worlds to support this. There were quite a few disqualifications in eliminations this year, and many of them determined who made the Round Robin in some way. I, as well as many others in the Vex community, do not believe that all of the teams in the Round Robin were truly the best teams in the world, and we attribute this to the randomness of Best of 1. I implore Vex to consider implementing Best of 3 at Worlds, a tournament that has so much on the line, and a tournament that means a lot to so many people. I, personally, am impartial on the implementation of Best of 1 for States, Regionals, and Signature Events, as these are all run by local Event Partners. However, Vex Worlds is run by people who have done it 11 times now, all but 1 under the Best of 3 system, and are experienced enough to manage the duration of the eliminations.
To everyone who claims that Best of 1 favors the most consistent team, I firmly believe that there is only a little truth in that. Say an alliance of 2 really high performing teams who went undefeated in qualifiers has a bad match and loses to a lower alliance. Whether it is because of a disqualification, bad driving or mechanical failures, that is besides the point. So many times has the winning alliance performed poorly in their next match and lost. Who is really the more consistent alliance here? The alliance of robots who went undefeated in qualifiers and had one bad match in eliminations? Or the alliance of robots who went 5-5, got a lucky match up in eliminations, and then blew it immediately after? I would also like to reiterate the QCC2 vs AURA match up that I mentioned a long time ago and someone brought up again the other day. QCC2’s autonomous did nearly the exact same thing 3 times in a row, the only exception being that they slightly knocked one cube the wrong way in the first match. AURA’s autonomous, on the other hand, not to discredit them at all, only worked in the first match, and then never completely again. For those who do not know, QCC2 ended up defeating AURA 2 matches to 1 after losing the first match. Again, who was more consistent here? The team who’s autonomous almost worked 3 times? Or the team who’s autonomous only worked once, but won the first match? Although I’m sure if you ask any of the members of QCC2 or AURA, they would give a different story or accept inconsistency.
Long story short, and seeing as this was a thread intended for EP Summit questions, is Best of 3 at worlds something that Vex has/will consider?