PDA

View Full Version : Is it fair to let Chairman's Award Winners go to Nats every year?


Jessica_166
04-19-2003, 11:32 PM
Personally I think it's great that there are teams that have great outreach programs in their communitities.

But, FIRST has been around a long time. It started out as being only a few teams and the numbers are growing. It's getting harder to win Chairman's. There are teams that may have won it 10 years ago, and therefore are able to go to Nats every year.
Do they deserve to though? Because their predecessors won it for them, they get to reap the benefits...
Should there be a rule that they are allowed to attend Nats for 4 years and then they need to earn the privelege again?

Lauren Hafford
04-20-2003, 12:20 AM
I think they deserve it! It was a hard-earned title, and they should reap those benefits. Yes, it's getting harder to win Chairmans, but that only means that every team is doing better things! but if the incentive is kept high, then we will still strive for it. I know that some of you will respond to that comment with "that's not the only reason why we should do good things in our community" and of course it's not. But anyways, keep the stakes high and the competition fierce and great things will come of it!

lauren

Mike Schroeder
04-20-2003, 12:24 AM
Chairmens isnt about what students do, its about the teams fundementals, its the team that has the standing programs that make a team. its how the team works, not about the studenst, its FIRST highest award becuase in my opinion, all the other awards (except for a few) are awards students earn and win

Chairmans award a whole Team/School/Sponsor/Community earn through their actions, programs, fundraisers, community service etc

that is why they are allowed to go every year

Dan Richardson
04-20-2003, 12:28 AM
I think they most def. should Its such an amazing honor to win an award like that.

If you had asked however if I think that they should be able to win it more than 1 year.. I say mayb not... or atleast a prescribed period of time before they can win it again

Manoel
04-20-2003, 01:01 AM
You know, the very last sentence they read when they're handing out the Chairman's Award is "it remains FIRST's most prestigious award".

So... Of course those teams should be going to Nationals!
:)

ZACH P.
04-20-2003, 01:15 AM
Of course they should be allowed to attend every year. They have won FIRST's highest award, and really have embodied the spirit of FIRST.

P.S. Even if they didnt go every year, they would still go every other year, so whats the big diff?

Kevin A
04-20-2003, 03:09 AM
Its not like there isnt enough room! they opened it to all teams this year!

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 09:20 AM
Of course they should!
It's FIRST highest achievement (though you wouldn't know since very few people bothered to congratulate 103 for winning the thing) and let's just say it's the award that keeps on giving. It won't kill FIRST to reserve 11 spots for these revered teams.

Yan Wang
04-20-2003, 11:21 AM
I like the idea of being allowed to go for 4 years (high school career)... you really shouldn't be reaping the benefits of someone else's hardwork.

If you want to go, then follow the example set by prior years to work hard and get to the nationals. Because teams change, it does not mean that for 10 years they'll be the same or just as active in the community.

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 11:35 AM
I agree with you monsieurcoffee -
I know a team that has won chairman's and I love them to death,
but the team doesn't really do all that much to try and win it again. And I'm not sure that it's fair to let them have a special privelege that they didn't earn.

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by kevcan
Its not like there isnt enough room! they opened it to all teams this year!

I don't agree with this statement. My team had an awesome robot for once this year but we weren't able to attend because we're an even number team. Because of the war we knew some teams would be dropping out. So we waited to see if we'd be able to register, but we weren't. We even won the Engineering Inspiration Award at our regional, which is the miniature Chairman's but they wouldn't allow us to register.

WakeZero
04-20-2003, 12:13 PM
The Chairman's award is FIRSTs greatest award to give, and any team that is organized and grounded enough in the ideals of FIRST to win it SHOULD attend Nationals every year.

Besides being a reward for that team's hardwork, it lets FIRST show them off for PR at Nationals ;)

Erin Rapacki
04-20-2003, 12:58 PM
Yes, previous Chairman's award winning teams display great PR for FIRST, and by letting them attend nationals every year, other teams from around the country may be able to observe them and ask them for advice.

And keep in mind, only about 1% of teams have won the Chairman's award, and that's not a large enough number to really prevent any other teams from attending nationals.

Chairman's award is coveted because it IS so difficult to win. An award looses meaning if it's easy to achieve, and yes it is getting more difficult to win every year, but it's not impossible.

Just work hard and keep your hopes up. And remember, what your doing should not be done specifically for winning Chairman's, your doing it let other people know what you're so excited about, and to possibly... change the world for the better a little.

Well, that's my $.02

ByE

erin

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Erin Rapacki
Yes, previous Chairman's award winning teams display great PR for FIRST, and by letting them attend nationals every year, other teams from around the country may be able to observe them and ask them for advice.


Okay - so do you know all of the Chairman's award winners so that you can go up and ask them questions/advice??

Also, how can a team that has won it say 8 years ago give you advice if they didn't do it. The only people who might remember what they did would be the mentors, assuming, they are still helping out the team.

The other thing is, what that team did to win the award is outdated. It takes a lot more to win that what those teams did.

I'm not campaigning against the Chairmans award, I just don't agree with the way they're deciding to use it. The cool thing with Chairman's is each and every year you have to be really creative to get something that can compete with other teams. Just imagine what the judges have to go through to pick a winner.

-Jessica

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 02:28 PM
11 spots being "wasted" on the chairman's award winners leaving only say 270+ for everybody else.
I see your point.:rolleyes:

Gope
04-20-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Jessica_166
Okay - so do you know all of the Chairman's award winners so that you can go up and ask them questions/advice??

Also, how can a team that has won it say 8 years ago give you advice if they didn't do it. The only people who might remember what they did would be the mentors, assuming, they are still helping out the team.

The other thing is, what that team did to win the award is outdated. It takes a lot more to win that what those teams did.

I'm not campaigning against the Chairmans award, I just don't agree with the way they're deciding to use it. The cool thing with Chairman's is each and every year you have to be really creative to get something that can compete with other teams. Just imagine what the judges have to go through to pick a winner.

-Jessica

My team won in 2000 and I am very offended by your statements, not because my team won but because of the x-cats. They are the ONLY team to win twice and will forever be the only team to win twice(it is soooo hard for a former chairmans award winning team to even be considered again because it is always in the back of the judges' minds). Go look at the x-cats, they won very long ago(92 and 94 I think) and tell me that they don't deserve to be there every year. They always build a robot that performs in the top 20, they always have a chairmans that considered and they along with the Bomb Squad(my team) and ChiefDelphi were selected to be ambassador teams. If you pull out a list and go look around you will find that all former chairman award winning teams are very similar to the x-cats and that they always bring a very high quality team that does very high quality work with them everywhere they go. So perhaps you should go research former Chairmans award winning teams and what they did and what they do before you go off and start saying that it is harder to win now that it was in years past.

Adam Y.
04-20-2003, 02:51 PM
11 spots being "wasted" on the chairman's award winners leaving only say 270+ for everybody else.
Im confused are we talking about regional chairman's winners or championship??

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by wysiswyg
Im confused are we talking about regional chairman's winners or championship??
Previous winners.

AJ Quick
04-20-2003, 02:58 PM
I think they should make the robot competition worth more than Chairmans. They make a bigger fuss out of Chairmans than they do the winners of the national competition. I look at the eligibility, and teams that won last year should be able to attend this year. There is the points system, but there is no garentee that a championship winner meets the requirements.

xavior06
04-20-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by AJ Quick
I think they should make the robot competition worth more than Chairmans. They make a bigger fuss out of Chairmans than they do the winners of the national competition. I look at the eligibility, and teams that won last year should be able to attend this year. There is the points system, but there is no garentee that a championship winner meets the requirements.

winning isnt everything in life

Adam Y.
04-20-2003, 03:06 PM
I think they should make the robot competition worth more than Chairmans. They make a bigger fuss out of Chairmans than they do the winners of the national competition. I look at the eligibility, and teams that won last year should be able to attend this year. There is the points system, but there is no garentee that a championship winner meets the requirements.
The same could be said for the Chairman's award winners using the points system.:p

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by AJ Quick
I think they should make the robot competition worth more than Chairmans. They make a bigger fuss out of Chairmans than they do the winners of the national competition. I look at the eligibility, and teams that won last year should be able to attend this year. There is the points system, but there is no garentee that a championship winner meets the requirements.

The reason why FIRST make such a big deal about the Chairman's award is because FIRST is trying to prove to everyone that this is more than just a robotics competiton. If all it was about was winning regionals then FIRST wouldn't have even bothered giving out a Chairman's award and just made it some sort of fancy Battlebots competiton.

rbayer
04-20-2003, 03:47 PM
Here's my take on the whole thing:


Teams that win Chairman's win it because of their team's philosophy and beliefs. These are things that are passed down from generation to generation of FIRSTers and are truly as much a part of a team as their name and number.

Teams that win Chairman's are more than a robotics team. They are good citizens. This is something that isn't rewarded enough in life, yet really should be. In my opinion, ANYTHING we can do to teach high-schoolers that being a good person is more important than winning at all costs is definately worth the cost--whatever that may be.

Teams that win Chairman's serve as a model of how other teams should try to behave. By bringing them to the championship each year, we can hope that some of their life philosophy will "rub off" on some of the newer teams.

Therefore, my vote is to allow Chairman's winners to come back as long as they want. Even 20 years from now, that will still only be 30 teams with guaranteed spots. Figure that about half of them will qualify in other ways each year, meaning that only leaves 15 spots taken because of Chairman's winners. Even once FIRST becomes so big that they can't continue with the even/odd thing and are forced to move to a more traditional qualifying system, I still believe Chairman's recipients should be allowed to go. It just makes sense.

--Rob

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Koko Ed
11 spots being "wasted" on the chairman's award winners leaving only say 270+ for everybody else.
I see your point.:rolleyes:

Did I ever mention anything about there not being enough spots for other teams because of chairman's???
uh no...
My point, which a bunch of you are missing, is there are people benefitting from other people's hard work. And I know not every team is still persisting in chairman's because of the fact that THEY'VE ALREADY WON IT.

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Jessica_166
Did I ever mention anything about there not being enough spots for other teams because of chairman's???
uh no...
My point, which a bunch of you are missing, is there are people benefitting from other people's hard work. And I know not every team is still persisting in chairman's because of the fact that THEY'VE ALREADY WON IT.

Alright I was being nice about this but I take your thread as a personal swipe at the X-Cats and the people who are still on the team from '92 and 94 and worked hard not only to make the X-Cats the team they are today but helped FIRST get there as well. From Mr. Eugene Wicks and Mrs. Peggy Foos. These people worked hard to make the X-Cats the team they are today and FIRST as well and the virtues that won us the Chairman's award in the past are eagerly practiced to this day!
To say that we don't deserve to be there because our win was far in FIRSTs past is a insult!

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by rbayer
Here's my take on the whole thing:

Teams that win Chairman's win it because of their team's philosophy and beliefs. These are things that are passed down from generation to generation of FIRSTers and are truly as much a part of a team as their name and number.

Teams that win Chairman's are more than a robotics team. They are good citizens. This is something that isn't rewarded enough in life, yet really should be. In my opinion, ANYTHING we can do to teach high-schoolers that being a good person is more important than winning at all costs is definately worth the cost--whatever that may be.
-Rob

Winning Chairman's doesn't necessarily make you a good citizen. And philosophies can change. I know firsthand that this is true.
Like I've mentioned in other posts, my team has always been the underdog. I know and am very close with a team who has won Chairman's before. This year their robot didn't come out as well as they had planned. (if anyone from that team is reading this I'm very sorry and don't wish to offend, but I need to make a point) However, we came out with a highly competitive robot. Some members of that team, not all, but some, decided that they were going to sulk about it. The team philosophy of "one team two bots" was completely lost. They no longer cheered us on during matches and it was a horrible mess. Yet they have won Chairman's in the past. Think about that.

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Koko Ed
Alright I was being nice about this but I take your thread as a personal swipe at the X-Cats and the people who are still on the team from '92 and 94 and worked hard not only to make the X-Cats the team they are today but helped FIRST get there as well. From Mr. Eugene Wicks and Mrs. Peggy Foos. These people worked hard to make the X-Cats the team they are today and FIRST as well and the virtues that won us the Chairman's award in the past are eagerly practiced to this day!
To say that we don't deserve to be there because our win was far in FIRSTs past is a insult!

Dude - I'm not saying that you don't deserve it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to see what other people think about it while trying to defend my own views. I never said anyone had to think what I think. But I am trying to explain what I think and why. You don't have to make this a personal issue.

Koko Ed
04-20-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Jessica_166
Winning Chairman's doesn't necessarily make you a good citizen. And philosophies can change. I know firsthand that this is true.
Like I've mentioned in other posts, my team has always been the underdog. I know and am very close with a team who has won Chairman's before. This year their robot didn't come out as well as they had planned. (if anyone from that team is reading this I'm very sorry and don't wish to offend, but I need to make a point) However, we came out with a highly competitive robot. Some members of that team, not all, but some, decided that they were going to sulk about it. The team philosophy of "one team two bots" was completely lost. They no longer cheered us on during matches and it was a horrible mess. Yet they have won Chairman's in the past. Think about that.

So because of the poor attitiudes of some kids on the team all the good things that have been done in the past should be torn up and thrown away? If there is a presence on that team that was there when they won the Chairman's award then hopefully they will assert themselves and help them to remeber what got them that award in the first place.
We did not have a good robot last year but we still cheered enthusiactically and remianed a good citizen of FIRST and one of the main reasons is the mentors on the X-Cats who pass down those values to our kids and kids who readily embraced those values. Because we understood what we had to live up to and we had no intention of letting down those teams of the past.
Hopefully the team you are talking about remebers the same.

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Koko Ed
So because of the poor attitiudes of some kids on the team all the good things that have been done in the past should be torn up and thrown away? If there is a presence on that team that was there when they won the Chairman's award then hopefully they will assert themselves and help them to remeber what got them that award in the first place.
We did not have a good robot last year but we still cheered enthusiactically and remianed a good citizen of FIRST and one of the main reasons is the mentors on the X-Cats who pass down those values to our kids and kids who readily embraced those values. Because we understood what we had to live up to and we had no intention of letting down those teams of the past.
Hopefully the team you are talking about remebers the same.

I remember that last year, we cheered for them and they cheered for us. The feelings were great. We had a blast. Last year our robot was a hunk of metal that moved. Their robot was really good. Well this year the roles reversed, but instead of being optimistic about it, they pretty much wanted nothing to do with us. And it wasn't a few kids, it was MOST of the team.

Keith Chester
04-20-2003, 04:47 PM
You think of Chairmans as an award.
Therein lies the mistake.
Winning Chairmans is, instead of a free ride to Nationals, a huge responsibility. What FIRST bestowed upon 103 this year was the responsibility of being a figurehead for other eastern seaboard teams, giving them the responsibility to lead teams to help FIRST grow.

103, 175, 47, and the other national chairman award winners DESERVE the right to go to nationals every year, as but a small payment to the leadership role that they have been given.
Re-read criteria about the Chairmans award, and ask if that doesn't deserve the highest recognition and award.

I'm disgusted this was ever asked. Rethink the FIRST community as you know it, for surely it's wrong because you are focussing on only the competition.

Jeff Waegelin
04-20-2003, 04:53 PM
Hey, guys.... let's cool down. No need for a flame war over something like the Chairman's Award. Come on, is that really in the spirit of FIRST?

For the record, I support letting Chairman's Award winners go to Nationals. For FIRST's highest honor, it's only fair. Chairman's Award winners have distinguished themselves not only as competitors, but as a TEAM. That's more important than anything, I think. Let them come as long as they want. They deserve it.

JVN
04-20-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Jessica_166
I remember that last year, we cheered for them and they cheered for us. The feelings were great. We had a blast. Last year our robot was a hunk of metal that moved. Their robot was really good. Well this year the roles reversed, but instead of being optimistic about it, they pretty much wanted nothing to do with us. And it wasn't a few kids, it was MOST of the team.

I know the story behind what you are talking about.
I feel you are not accurately depicting the events as they occurred.

I also feel this discussion has moved past all usefulness.
It's turning into a flame war.

FIRST likes the Chairman's Award.
FIRST chooses to let all Chairman's Awards teams attend nationals.
FIRST will not change it's policy. (They REALLLLLLY like Chairman's teams, this is becoming more and more apparent).

Deal with it.


Everyone seems to have weighed in enough opinions...
Brandon?

AJ Quick
04-20-2003, 05:03 PM
When I wrote that, I did not mean get rid of Chairman's or not allow them to go to Nationals. Chairmans is a great thing, but this is after all the FIRST Robotics Competition, and not the FIRST Chairmans Competition. Sure it is more than robots, but they should give those who win the robot portion of the competiton a shoe-in for the championships next year.

I vote for allowing them to go, though. FIRST really wants to keep these teams in the competition, to keep these kinds of great shows of community effort to continue.

rbayer
04-20-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by AJ Quick
they should give those who win the robot portion of the competiton a shoe-in for the championships next year.


They do.

http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/res_art9.htm

AJ Quick
04-20-2003, 05:12 PM
Thanks Rob.. looks like I skipped over that bullet earlier.

Then disregard all of my posts in this topic. :D

Dan Richardson
04-20-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by kevcan
Its not like there isnt enough room! they opened it to all teams this year!

Thats funny.. they didn't open it up to us... :-(

We weren't put on the list even tho we were on the waiting list and called them and everything

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Stud Man Dan
Thats funny.. they didn't open it up to us... :-(

We weren't put on the list even tho we were on the waiting list and called them and everything

same with us


Just for the record : I brought this up to see everyone's opinions. I know it can be very controversial and I myself have very strong opinions. I was just curious to see if anyone could bring to the light something I might have overlooked when I formulated my opinion.

John V. Neun - What events do you think I'm not accurately depicting?

P1NKfreak13
04-20-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Lauren Hafford
I think they deserve it! It was a hard-earned title, and they should reap those benefits. Yes, it's getting harder to win Chairmans, but that only means that every team is doing better things! but if the incentive is kept high, then we will still strive for it. I know that some of you will respond to that comment with "that's not the only reason why we should do good things in our community" and of course it's not. But anyways, keep the stakes high and the competition fierce and great things will come of it!

lauren

I totally agree with you! I mean our team won chairman's @ UCF in Orlando...and I know how hard we all worked on it for that...(the format had to be perfect, information in it had to be good and worth reading, the presentation @ the regional!...everything goes into it!) but winning @ the national level...wow! What an honor is all I have to say. I mean I am totally proud of my team and feel like we rock, and we won it @ the regional level...how do you think the grand winners feel? I cant even imagine...Id be feeling...wow, I cant even put into words what I would be feeling...I just know that it would be good and that the winners of the award should be proud and should get the rights to go to nats every year! They totally earned it! :D

JVN
04-20-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Jessica_166

John V. Neun - What events do you think I'm not accurately depicting?

I feel you are unfairly portraying the team you are talking about. Every interaction I've EVER had with said team has been highly positive. I feel they are a prime example of what FIRST should be all about.

Think about the phrase "One team, two bots"
Now re-evaluate that phrase to mean "Two teams, 1/2 the budget" and ask yourself what would have happened to your team, without their support.

They ARE one of the best teams in FIRST. They DO deserve to go to the championship. They DO deserve the chairman's award. They DEFINITELY deserved to attend nationals this year, and made a very positive showing in their division (seeded top 20 I believe).

What you are saying about them is just sort of slander. You've come right out on this public forum, and said "I don't think they deserved to attend nationals".
How graciously proffesional of you.

Jessica_166
04-20-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by JVN


and ask yourself what would have happened to your team, without their support.

What you are saying about them is just sort of slander. You've come right out on this public forum, and said "I don't think they deserved to attend nationals".
How graciously proffesional of you.

Well seeing as how they are an odd number team, this year didn't matter if they had won the award or not. And I definitely did not have them in mind when I posed this question. I actually had this thought a while back, and I merely used them as an example to prove a much larger point. I don't know what your connection with them is, but I see them almost every night when we work on our robots and this year has been a bit hostile. There are some people who exhibit great qualities on their team and have made a difference for them, but I am sure you have not interacted with all of them, and I can honestly tell you that not all of them have great qualities.
Also it is not they who support us, but their sponsor. They were there for us last year and as always we have supported them. You can talk to anyone on my team and you will get the same response. This year they haven't been very supportive of our team, but we still show them our support and get rejected. Think of how it must feel to try to cheer with them and be unacknowledged.

At the Granite State Regional, they were chosen along with us as a finalist. The first match, our robots were on the field together. I tried getting the cheer of BAE going, but all they would chant was their team number. Now is that support for you? I definitely didn't feel any. Now can you tell me that you know them better?

WakeZero
04-20-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by AJ Quick
I think they should make the robot competition worth more than Chairmans. They make a bigger fuss out of Chairmans than they do the winners of the national competition. I look at the eligibility, and teams that won last year should be able to attend this year. There is the points system, but there is no garentee that a championship winner meets the requirements.

AJ, I don't want to single you out here but there are others who think along the same lines as your post above and I think some of you are missing the point here...

Anyone who thinks that winning the National Championship is the most important thing in FIRST is seriously mistaken :ahh:

If you have forgotten, FIRST means: For INSPIRATION and RECOGNITION of Science and Technology :rolleyes:

The most important thing a team can do is to INSPIRE as many students, mentors, parents, and community members as they can. This is what the Chairman's award RECOGNIZES, and those are the teams that should always be at Nationals because they are the ones that have proven to inspire others the most... EVEN 8 years after they have won the award ;)

Again, enough said :yikes:

Brandon Martus
04-20-2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by WakeZero
Again, enough said :yikes:

Yep.

18voltMilwauke
04-20-2003, 10:16 PM
but i think the award should be to a team that is not able to go to nats that year

Gadget470
04-21-2003, 01:52 AM
First, to the last post by 18volt,

That would be unfair to everyone else at competition who has already earned their spot via previous accomplishments or team number. They may have worked just as hard, or harder, in their community than another team and don't have a chance to win the only award more important than the National Championships?

--

Now to the thread start:
2003 ~ Still Competes ~ 103 - NASA/Amplifier Research/Custom Finishers/Lutron Electronics/BAE Systems & Palisades High School
2002 ~ Still Competes ~ 175 - UTC/Hamilton Sundstrand Space Systems International/Techni-Products/Veritech Media & Enrico Fermi High School
2001 ~ Still Competes ~ 22 - NASAJPL/Boeing/Rocketdyne/FADL Engineering/Decker Machine & Chatsworth High School
2000 ~ Still Competes ~ 16 - Baxter Healthcare Corporation & Mountain Home High School
1999 ~ Still Competes ~ 120 - NASA Lewis Research Center/TRW, Inc./Battelle Memorial Institute & East Technical High School
1998 ~ Out of FIRST ~ 23 - Boston Edison & Plymouth North High School
1997 ~ Still Competes ~ 47 - Delphi International & Pontiac Central High School
1996 ~ Out of FIRST ~ 144 - Procter & Gamble & Walnut Hills High School
1995 ~ Still Competes ~ 151 - Lockheed Sanders & Nashua High School
1994 ~ Still Competes ~ 191 - Xerox Corporation & JC Wilson Magnet High School
1993 ~ Out of FIRST ~ 7 - AT&T Bell Labs & Science High School
1992 ~ Still Competes ~ 191 - Xerox Corporation & JC Wilson Magnet High School


In the 11 years that FIRST has been around (previous to now), 10 teams have won chairman's (191 won twice). Of that 10, 7 competed this year. 3 of them were qualified for nationals because of winning chairman's award in the past. The other 4 were odd-numbered and already qualified because of it.

So roughly 50% of the chairman's award winners qualify because of it. Given that there is one each year, in 20 years, 28-30 teams will have a chairman's award under their belt and be qualified for nationals. 15 of which will qualify based on team number.

With FIRST's growth over the years, and Dean Kamen's goal to have the program to as many high schools as possible. I wouldn't be surprised at 3000+ teams in 20 years.
If the same qualification method is implemented, .5% (yes, half a percent) of the teams attending nationals will be pre-qualified because they won FIRST's highest honor.

If you feel this is wrong of FIRST to grant, I do not see a logical reason, nor your reason. (To the two votes for "no" so far)

KenWittlief
04-21-2003, 10:02 AM
Jessica - I understand your reasoning from the perspective of teams and students who work really hard to produce a winning robot, so that they can goto the championship in their off year (even/odd year).

If you want to make attendance at the championship genuinely fair to all teams then you must:

1. take away the even/odd freebee clause - only teams that qualify by virture of their performance can attend.

2. no more of this nonsense of teams going to more than one regional until they win - teams must only be allowed to attend THEIR regional - regional means YOUR AREA! teams would be required to attend the closest regional and they must WIN in order to attend the championship. Period!

so there was what? 20? 25 regionals this year? that means that 3*25 = 75 teams would advance to the championship. No other teams can attend.

Is this what you really want? Do we really want to turn FIRST into a robot building sport?

The error in your logic is thinking that teams work really hard to win the Chairmans award. Not true. The Chairmans award is about 40 cents worth of plastic. With a Chairmans award and 50 cents you can buy a cup of coffee :c)

Its not like the Nobel Prize in inspiration - you dont get $5 million along with the award -its not an award - its an honor - its formal recognition - and thats ALL it is.

Teams that won the chairmans award, all those things they did they did because those things are important to them - they WANTED to do those things - they did not do them to win any awards - they did them because those are the ideals that FIRST is built on - and they ARE FIRST.

To imply that a team will work really hard for one year to win the Chairmans award, and then 'rest' on their accomplishment - that is really a insult to the teams that hold those honors.

The Xcats have won twice - they are also a founding team - their sponsor is also a founding sponsor (they give more money directly to FIRST each year than they give to their OWN TEAM).

They have also directly inspired ALL the teams in the Rochester, NY area - we all learned about FIRST from the Xcats - if it werent for their incredible outreach effort the other teams in the area would not even exist (6 to 10 teams, depending on where you draw the 'area' boundary).

And if you go back and look carefully at the critera for winning the Chairmans award, you will learn there is not one single point related to robots, your robot, your teams placement at any competition this year or last years. You can place dead last at every regional you attend and STILL win the Chairmans award.

Let that sink in for a while, and you will get-it. The chairmans award is not about earning anything.

its not about winning anything.

its not about robots.

Its about what FIRST really is - its seems like the real purpose of FIRST has become its 'secret mission' [inspiration]

dez250
04-21-2003, 10:22 AM
I havenít read what everyone has said and this message is not on behalf of team 250, anyone else on 250, or anyone else that may be mentioned in this post, it is purely what I think of this whole thing.

What first puts out as automatic qualification is as follows;
"2. Teams automatically qualify for this year's Championship in the following ways:

-All former Championship Chairmanís Award winners (1992-2002)
-Prior year Championship winners
-Teams that have participated in every competition year (1992-2002)
-Current year Regional Event winners
-Current year Regional Chairmanís Award winners
-Current year Technical Award winners at Regional Events (Driving Tomorrowís Technology, Industrial Design, Leadership in Controls, and Quality Awards) "


Now what I have to say is on the topic not only of the first point of All former Championship Chairmanís Award winners but also on the third point there too, Teams that have participated in every competition year.

The team I have been on since I joined first is team 250 the Dynamos, yes the name has changed and the number has also, along with who has sponsored them, but our team has been around since 1992. The person who has been here since the start is still here, and heís active with our team. But what I am saying is the team has changed but since we have been around since the start (only 5 other teams are active too) that gives us a buy into nationals. Like what everyone else is saying about the Chairmanís award and if they should go to Natís cause they have won it in the past, do they really deserve it since they have changed or may change in the future? Definitely they do! This is because of my participation with team 250 I can see why any chairmanís winner or original team deserves to go. This is due to them exemplifying the FIRST spirit, the chairmanís award is what FIRST is all about, and original teams show the dedication and determination of the FIRST spirit also. I am not saying no one doesnít deserve to go, but what I am saying is that if anyone truly deserves to go I couldnít tell you whom. This may seem biased but I do believe that you all will understand what I am trying to say, is that teams may change but truth be told, take a look at everyone and you will see that no one stands out any more then your own self in the FIRST community.

~Michael Dessingue

Joe Matt
04-21-2003, 10:44 AM
I think that Chairmans is the soul of FIRST. Yet many people outside (and inside somewhat) recognize it's importance. They would rather win and get more outside attention than win the Chairmans award. Chairmans needs to be given all FIRST can give it in privalages for outsiders to see that changing the world is bigger than competition. My proposal is for Nats and Regional winners of the comp to go that year and next year compared to going forever if you win Nats. Yet Chairmans should be toned down. Regional Chairmans should be given 4 years opening, and Nats Chairmans gets it forever as long as the team is the same year to year.

Koko Ed
04-21-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by JosephM
I think that Chairmans is the soul of FIRST. Yet many people outside (and inside somewhat) recognize it's importance. They would rather win and get more outside attention than win the Chairmans award. Chairmans needs to be given all FIRST can give it in privalages for outsiders to see that changing the world is bigger than competition. My proposal is for Nats and Regional winners of the comp to go that year and next year compared to going forever if you win Nats. Yet Chairmans should be toned down. Regional Chairmans should be given 4 years opening, and Nats Chairmans gets it forever as long as the team is the same year to year.


I would like to have a place where the Chairman's award and the entries can be displayed for the general public can see what the award is all about and what it means to FIRST.

Jeff Waegelin
04-21-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Koko Ed
I would like to have a place where the Chairman's award and the entries can be displayed for the general public can see what the award is all about and what it means to FIRST.

You mean, like an actual, physical Hall of Fame?

Gadget470
04-21-2003, 11:19 AM
I'd assume at least a FIRST Chaiman's Hall of Fame. Currently, only the team name/number/sponsor list is displayed on the FIRST website. I would assume a place to view chaiman's entrys

Joe Matt
04-21-2003, 11:19 AM
Two, a traveling for regionals and nats, and a permement one at FIRST Place.

Koko Ed
04-21-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by JosephM
Two, a traveling for regionals and nats, and a permement one at FIRST Place.

That's what I had in mind.
A kiosk that displays that video for the Chairman's award HOF, the award itself (which is kinda like the Stanley cup. THe winning team gets to keep it for a year then give it to the next winner. Unless you win it three times then you get to keep it) and have computer displays which allow you to view the finalists entries(Team 120 The Scarabian Knights don't even have a website so there wa no way anyone could have seen what they did).
They could set it up in that area in front of Curie where everyone got off of the escalator.

Pamela
04-22-2003, 04:09 PM
I must say that I am not usually one to post in controversial threads, or to really disagree or argue with anyone on these boards, but this conversation here strikes a very personal cord with me.
Reading this thread I am deeply saddened, as a 166 veteran and ex-teamleader. As a leader I tried to install gracious proffesionalism and understanding of other teams in the FIRST community to my peers on the team. I tried to make them understand that Chief Delphi was a great place to network and get informattion and share ideas with other teams. I am thrilled to see so many new Merrimack members cruising the boards and posting occasionally, this is a good thing. Attacking another team that has helped you get where you are today is not.
Jess, the way you started your thread was admirable, you had an idea and you wanted input from others in the community as to whether or not your thinking was valid. It was a well placed question and poll in which you stated your thoughts on why things were, what you thought would improve it and put forth feasible options in your poll. This sparked off an interesting discussion between many people in the community. In your next post you reflected on what another had said then went to add in an example to prove your point. This is where you went wrong
To say that another team is not good enough is ungracious and uncalled for. I know you may not have meant to personally attack this team but you need to be aware of what you are posting and be responsible for your words.
I know Merrimack and Nashua have had our problems but please do not forget the wonderful things they have done for us. They are very deserving of their free ride to nationals. BAE Systems is there sponsor and is very much a part of their team. Do not forget this, you cannot seperate the sponsor and the team.
Nashua is a first class team in the land of FIRST, they are a shining example of what it means to be a chairmans team and the responsibilitly that comes with it. From lending a hand in the pits at competitions, to lending programers to less experienced teams for hours on end, Nashua excells at showing the spirit of FIRST. They began lego teams in their city and eventually spurred enough teams to host a state tournament. This year they even hosted a FIRST regional competition. For years they have been getting out into their community at Holiday Strolls and Youth Rallies to spread a positive message to their city. They even so graciously invited Merrimack to share in the joy of these activities. Every year Merrimack has hosted a 4th of July Demo, which Nashua, whether with students, engineers (Thanks Bryan Lee!), or a robot has somehow shown their support for our team. Out of this comraderie BAE Systems picked us up as one of their own teams when we were in trouble of not competing due to lack of sponsor. Nashua very gracioulsy shared their budget, resources, and space with the Merrimack team. As if that was not enough, the BAE team picked up partially sponsorship for many of the dying New Hampshire teams. As I said before, the sponsor is the team, without students like Chris C., Aaron, Tyler, and many others BAE would not have been so generous with their money, our team owes Nashua alot, please try not to forget it.
I am sorry this post is so long, but things needed to be said. I for one think Nashua is an amazing team, lets not lose sight of the wonderful things they have done because of a few bad attitudes. I hope the FIRST community as a whole can forgive Jess for her comments, I know her enough that she didn't intend on hurting or offending anyone. I just hope that the gracious feelings between Merrimack and Nashua can continue on, I would hate to see the spirit of cooperation between those 2 teams die.

Adrienne E.
04-22-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Replic
You think of Chairmans as an award.
Therein lies the mistake.
Winning Chairmans is, instead of a free ride to Nationals, a huge responsibility. What FIRST bestowed upon 103 this year was the responsibility of being a figurehead for other eastern seaboard teams, giving them the responsibility to lead teams to help FIRST grow.

This is exactly why I agree that Chairman's Award winners should have the privilege of going to nationals every year. FIRST looks so highly upon past award winners (as Gope pointed out as well), with good reason. These winners are in FIRST's mind, role models to every team. Certain traits and attitudes are passed down in FIRST teams, just as they are in families. Because of this I refuse to believe any team that won a Chairmans in the past could change their teams ideals so much that people would say they don't deserve that go to nationals anymore. If you look at any team that has won this award before you can see them still making a difference in their team, their community, and the entire FIRST community. Coming from one of these teams I know first hand how much responsibility and respect they are given. In my mind this whole debate shouldn't even be an issue.

Marc P.
04-22-2003, 10:01 PM
I'm going to attempt to summarize both sides:

The argument for allowing all previous Chairman's Award winners into nationals is understandable and logical. Chairman's IS FIRST's highest honor, and teams must demonstrate unprescidented spirit, sportsmanship, and involvement in their communities. Therefore, the honor and dignity of a team number is and always will be associated with that award.


The argument against allowing previous winners is also understandable and logical. The basic concept is that teams change with time. I've experienced this firsthand- my first year involved with a team officially was in 2000. Back then, myself, and all team members cheered universally for all teams at the competition, regardless of whether they were an alliance partner, or an opposing alliance. We cheered for everyone simply because we had a great time. The next year, a number of the founding/core members of the team graduated and moved on, away from FIRST. There was still some level of spirit left at competitions, but it was more limited to cheering for our own team than other teams. By 2002, all founding/original members had graduated and moved on, leaving a handful of members from the previous 2 seasons, and a rush of new members. Cheering had become more scarce, and usually only when our robot was doing well in a match. This past season was the worst yet, where the cheering was limited to about 5 of the more experienced members, and only when our team name and number were announced prior to each match.

The point is, teams DO change with time, as members enter and graduate, mentors come and go. While some teams spirit, enthusiasm, and involvement increase with time, others decrease, and as the FIRST spirit torch is passed from generation to generation, I feel it sometimes looses some of it's warmth and glow, as the new members take it up, and are not quite sure what to do with it.

I remember in 2000, there was a match where one robot was flipped onto it's side. It wasn't their alliance partner who came to their aid though, it was an opposing robot who intentionally knocked them back on track. For me, that moment defined Gracious Professionalism, and I've not seen a match to date where opposing robots would help each other like that, despite the number of flippings that occured in this past year's competition.

In closing, I agree with previous Chairman's Winners attending nationals, but I more than understand Jessica's position on the subject. If a team changes, even just a little bit, from year to year, eventually the changes will drown out what a team once was, or where it came from. I realize this is not always the case, and there are many, many teams out there which are still tried and true to what they were founded on. However, it does pose the original question of the thread- are those teams (and at this point there may not be any, but 10, 20, 30 years from now) that aren't true to what their team had been upon winning the award still eligable to attend nationals year after year?

AJ Quick
04-22-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by WakeZero
AJ, I don't want to single you out here but there are others who think along the same lines as your post above and I think some of you are missing the point here...

Anyone who thinks that winning the National Championship is the most important thing in FIRST is seriously mistaken :ahh:

I would just like to mention, (again) that my posts in this thread were from a misconception of the qualifications of a team to go to the national competition. I do like Chairman's just thought that past year robot winners didn't go to the nats the next year. My teammate Rob pointed that I was wrong.

I do like Chairman's and am going to do everything to get my team motivated to do more than we have in the past and be better contenders.

OneAngryDaisy
04-22-2003, 11:10 PM
I think you are forgetting the amazing teachers, sponsors, engineers, and all others that made the chairmans award possible... Chances are they'll still be on the team in four years. Don't they deserve to go to the championship event for all of their work? It's the team, not the people that count..


And now, a famous quote- There is no I in team.

WakeZero
04-23-2003, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by AJ Quick
I would just like to mention, (again) that my posts in this thread were from a misconception of the qualifications of a team to go to the national competition. I do like Chairman's just thought that past year robot winners didn't go to the nats the next year. My teammate Rob pointed that I was wrong.

I do like Chairman's and am going to do everything to get my team motivated to do more than we have in the past and be better contenders.

I know AJ, that is why I said I didn't want to single ya out :)

I just knew there are others out there thinking the same thing as what you didn't mean... if that makes any sense what-so-ever :confused: :yikes: :rolleyes:

Jeff Waegelin
05-04-2003, 02:27 PM
Ben... I'm glad we managed to just let this die down, and keep everything calm. This just seems to be causing trouble for trouble's sake.

Madison
05-04-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
I kinda agree with Jessica: teams that win a chairmans should have to keep up to renew their award, otherwise it's a goal and the end of a task: to win the award and go to the nats every year.

It's only the end of a task if competing at the Championship event is your primary goal.

If you work hard and win the Chairman's Award to ensure your team a place on that roster each year, you probably didn't deserve to win the Chairman's Award.

Ben Mitchell
05-04-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Jeff Waegelin
Ben... I'm glad we managed to just let this die down, and keep everything calm. This just seems to be causing trouble for trouble's sake.

If it makes you upset, I will delete my post. I did not mean to be causing trouble for the sake of it.

Although, I'm not sure how my post was inflammatory, nor why you mentioned me by name.

Marc P. hit the nail on the head though, in his last paragraph. Teams do change - should the award remain constant, though a team may change attitudes completely? Should a team be rewarded for programs that it may discontinue a year later?

Hmm. I think it is an interesting arguement, and not sure why it is causing trouble.