Does the scoring system of qualifying points and ranking points seem broken to anybody else? I like the qualifying points because it makes sense to have team rankings primarily based on match wins and losses. However, I think that a better tie-breaker is needed than ranking points. I understand the purpose behind ranking points: they are supposed to show the strength of the competition you beat. However, they have a major flaw: they don't necessarily reflect on the strength of your team. Just because the teams that you beat were low scorers, that doesn't mean that you can't also beat higher scoring teams. Furthermore, the amount of scoring that occurs in a match is not the best indicator of how good the teams involved in that match were. I believe that teams who win low-scoring and high-defense matches can be just as good as teams who win high-scoring and low-defense matches.
But, enough about my views. What do other people think? Do you like the scoring system that FTC uses or would you like to see some kind of change?