PDA

View Full Version : Two Chairmans Winners Per Event


JackN
06-06-2006, 07:15 PM
It sounds crazy but what if there were two Chairmans Winners at each Event. It would make it so deserving teams have a chance even against dynastic powerhouse chairmans teams like 1002, 1108, 365, 233, and 79. It is just a thought and has anyone else had this thought?

hoorayforpink
06-06-2006, 07:17 PM
sounds crazy almost cazy enough to work granted there were two teams prsent who met the standards ofthe chairman's award

Bharat Nain
06-06-2006, 07:24 PM
That's not the point. Re-read the Chairmans criteria.

Koko Ed
06-06-2006, 07:45 PM
There can be only one....

Joe Matt
06-06-2006, 07:46 PM
While I understand the reasoning behind it, I disagree. Many Chairmans award winners really don't do much "new" year to year, and are easily toppled (the "winners" syndrome, the idea that you're still the champion, and you get side-swiped). I know that several teams that win chairmans over and over again don't do much, or keep touting the same old stuff over and over again, and there just isn't any real competition to challange them. Then there's the reason for having multipule winners, so they can try again and again to win the Champs. And once they win the champs, they'll be removed from the pool at regionals, allowing for another team.

santosh
06-06-2006, 08:01 PM
I personally think that there should be One, but I do think that there should be honorable mentions at the regional level.

Vu2000
06-06-2006, 08:51 PM
Honorable mentions would just be too much... I think EI at the regional level is usually thought of as Chairman's runner-up.

Mike Schroeder
06-06-2006, 08:59 PM
Honorable mentions would just be too much... I think EI at the regional level is usually thought of as Chairman's runner-up.

Thats Incorrect, team 25 has recieved the EI award, at a regional the Chairmens was not submitted at

santosh
06-06-2006, 09:06 PM
As did 612

Eugenia Gabrielov
06-06-2006, 09:07 PM
Thats Incorrect, team 25 has recieved the EI award, at a regional the Chairmens was not submitted at

I just want to second that by saying other teams have had that happen. I also believe that the honor of the Chairman's Award is the uniqueness of its presentation - a team that can shine above so many deserving candidates is the winner - and recognizing such a team is the entire point of the award.

Besides, if you add two of Chairman's, you have to add 2 of other things to be fair...and that would just make the entire process crazy!

Vu2000
06-07-2006, 01:48 AM
Yupp, I'm well aware that there are teams out there that have won EI without submitting a Chairman's Award. I do believe that there should be 1 chairman's award winner, BUT, I don't believe that there is only one deserving of the award. If a team does an exemplary job in their chairman's presentation and such, however, they should be rewarded with the second highest honor first bestows upon a team (EI) and a trip to Nationals. The problem with my statement before was that this situation has too many variables; one being that some regionals have way more submissions than others (i.e SoCal had 12ish this year).

Madison
06-07-2006, 02:11 AM
The Chairman's Award and Engineering Inspiration award are separate awards with differing criteria. The Engineering Inspiration award is the second highest honor FIRST bestows upon a team, not a runner up to the Chairman's Award. The difference, however subtle, is important.

Al Skierkiewicz
06-07-2006, 06:55 AM
This is a very special award and a special honor. I was happy to see regional awards for both Chairman's and Woodie Flower's as there are many deserving teams out there.
I disagree with the statement that teams don't do that much from year to year. A team who is worthy of the Chairman's award needs to be doing something every year. It is the only way.

OZ_341
06-07-2006, 09:25 AM
I think their should be one winner only, although a Regional Honorable Mention may not be a bad idea.
EI and second place Chairman's are often confused by students and judges. EI should be more for spreading Engineering Interest rather general community activity or promotion of FIRST. Although there are many overlapping projects that teams create which are difficult to categorize.

Just to address the idea of Chairmans Teams slacking off. I don't think that most Chairman's teams sit back and relax. It is just not in their nature.

I can tell you for sure that we doubled everything we do this year and still did not win Chairman's in Philly. So I don't think that laziness is the problem. We just had different judges with a different idea of what made a team deserving of the award. Its not easy being a Philly Chairman's candidate there are just so many good teams!
And finally lets face it when you are seeking the highest honor in any competition, having two winners will not solve the problem. Eventually someone has to feel the sting of disappointment. This is how we learn and improve.

Good luck to all in the off-season!!!

Jherbie53
06-07-2006, 12:30 PM
Only one team should win chairmans, but there could be an honorable mention for the teams that were really close. Lets say team A does a good job on there presentation and has done a lot to spread FIRST over the past year. Then team B has a great presentation and didn't do as much as team A did to spread FIRST. You can add as many teams in the mix as you want for this example, but twos good for now. Both teams are just as deserving of the award, but for some reason the judges choose one over the other. We don't know what tipped the scale to the team that won. Like OZ_341 said, you might have different judges every year, which makes it harder to win.

An honorable mention would give us an idea of who might of been second, but there really is no second when you are talking about chairmans. Why is there no second? you might ask. Because if you are doing anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to spread FIRST around, you are just as deserving as anyone for the award. Even if all you do during the off season is do one or two presentations for elementary schools or sponsor a LEGO league team, you are doing what really counts, spreading FIRST.

RoboMadi
06-07-2006, 11:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think its more about the process not about what do your team or how many 'numbers' of things they do in their community to spread the message of FRIST.

A team can do as many things as they want, but doing it every year and adding more to it is the hard part.
There are a lot of teams in FIRST (like to mention the HOF teams), that are all about the process. Members come and leave every year, which makes it harder to keep up with the momentum; but some teams have come up with extraordinary plans which have helped them not only creating a base, but also blossoming on that base.
Connecting back to what this post is about, i think there should only be one chairman award winner. As some people have mentioned before that teams does have an opportunity to win EI, which is fair enough
Also i do recognize the fact that as the FIRST is growing the competition will grow too, which does mean that every team has to work harder than ever before to keep up with their process, which actually can be a great learning experience.

Natchez
06-08-2006, 01:56 AM
There can be only one....

I completely agree!

:o Please excuse me while I get my soap box off of a root of this beautiful oak tree; ah, that's better. :o

I believe that we should abolish the Regional Chairman's Award BUT each regional should send as many teams to the Championships based on the entries for the most prestigious award in FIRST award (i.e. Chairman's Award) as we do for the it's not all about the robot award (i.e. Regional Winners). We currently advance 3 for the robot and 1 for the Chairman's to the Championships ... how about at least 3 & 3; on the other hand, maybe if only one advances for the Chairman's then maybe only one should advance for the robot ... how about only the alliance captain of the regional winning alliance advances ... ohhhhhhhhhhh, this would change the thought process behind high seeded teams hooking up together :D

I like the idea of 105 teams walking around the country telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, "We are one of 3 teams selected at our regional to compete for the Chairman's Award in Atlanta, the most prestigious award in FIRST." rather than 35 teams telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, "We won the regional Chairman's Award; the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award in FIRST." In summary, there should only be one Chairman's Award that the Chairman of FIRST presents at the Championships and the rest should be called something else.

I realize that my complaining can be seen as purely semantics but my real goal is not semantical at all: To have Chairman's as competitive and celebrated as the robot competition. Ultimately, Chairman's efforts from teams are more responsible for supplying America's workforce with engineers and scientists than building the robot. In the year 2020, hopefully you'll hear comments like, "What do you mean your team does not compete for Chairman's; EVERYONE competes for Chairman's!" Then, in 2050, you'll hear comments akin to, "Oh, we do not have a robot, we are just here competing for the Chairman's Award."

Ed, I'm sorry that I took liberty with your "There can be only one ..." statement but it was a great step onto my soap box. Thank you!

Back to the Nutt Ranch,
Lucien

p.s. I still haven't found any 1/4-20 nuts on the ranch ... just a bunch of white jackets with the arms sewn to the pockets. I did have pecan pie for lunch though; maybe it is that kind of nut farm :ahh:.

OZ_341
06-08-2006, 04:49 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think its more about the process not about what do your team or how many 'numbers' of things they do in their community to spread the message of FRIST.

That is correct. The award is about sustained excellence over time. While it is true that a team should not win for the "amount of stuff" that they do, chances are a team that has been doing this for a long time will have many strong and long lasting projects. Teams should win for proven and sustained efforts which have been improved over time. A large number of short term, high impact projects should not be a basis for winning the Chairman's Award.

And in response to the recent posts. I actually like the Regional Chairman's Award as a concept. Too many great programs went unrecognized under the old system. Perhaps some improvements could be made to the process, but having regional winners has made the process more democratic. Before the national award process was "top /down". Now teams spring up from local grassroots efforts.

sheltie234
06-08-2006, 08:02 AM
I have to agree with many who have already posted. The point of the Chairman's Award is to award the team who has best allowed the community know about FIRST, and there can't be two. Sure, there will be multiple teams at a competition who deserve it, but there should only be one winner. What about the National Chairman's Award? Should all of the teams who have already won win the National award because, yes, they all are deserving teams? I think there should only be one winner at each competition.

Lil' Lavery
06-08-2006, 02:08 PM
There should only be one Chairman's Award given out per competition. Despite that, I am very much in favor of giving out honorable mentions to team that's deserve recognition, as is done at the Championship event and at the VCU regional this year.
Engineering Inspiration, while being similar in many regards to Chairman's Award, IS NOT THE RUNNER-UP CHAIRMAN'S! Even if the judging criteria were exactly the same (which it isn't), it is open to ALL teams who attend the regional, whether or not they submitted their Chairman's award there or they are eligible to win Chairman's (a FIRST HoF or even a rookie team can win EI, but not CA). Engineering Inspiration is about creating excitment about Engineering, Science, and Technology, and hopefully creating an impact in which more students persue careers in those fields. You do not have to be a "role model team" or "build a partnership" or fill several of the other CA recquirments.

Athleticgirl389
06-08-2006, 04:00 PM
Chairman's Award is a very Honorable mention. To give it to more than one team (per regional) is weird. I mean, if you try year after year for it and do not win, just keep trying. It goes to show that you will never give up and have the persistence and everything to keep going for it. It defeats the purpose of giving it to more than one team. Sounds redundant, but it's the truth. Chairman's Award is, in my mind (perhaps in many other minds) the highest award given in FIRST; like a Nobel prize or something. It's just not given out at random or to teams who have tried over and over but failed. Speaking as someone who tried for the Chairman's Award for the 1st time this year with my team, it was not an easy task and I can see why it is such an honor to win it. The team that does win it deserves major congratulations because winning it is awesome and I look up to those teams when going to the next season and writing the Chairman's Award. Just keep trying and eventually you will get the ever-so sought after Chairman's Award.

GaryVoshol
06-09-2006, 08:17 AM
What if, instead of additional Chairman's award winners per regional, those that won the award would be eligible to present at the Championships for more than one year? It would be like the WFA. I'd suggest a 2-year limit - it would effectively double the number of entries at the Championships. It would be a more difficult judging process, I'll grant that, so I wouldn't suggest a longer time limit. I woudn't think that teams would get a Chairman's one year and then completely slack off the next - and if any did, they wouldn't be judged very highly at the Championships.

Freddy Schurr
06-09-2006, 08:22 AM
Here is how it should be:

1 Regional Chairman Winner

1 Regional Chairman Runner-Up Winner

Ryan Dognaux
06-09-2006, 10:05 AM
There can be only one....

This is the truth. The Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award FIRST gives out. There should be only one team that receives this award at the Regional level; for if FIRST begins awarding multiple Chairman's Awards, it will lose its prestigious meaning. The Chairman's Award is seen as that thing that's almost unattainable. It's the pinnacle, the best of the best. If you win it, you're on top of the world, and if you don't, you keep trying because to receive it means you're among the best of the best.

To somehow change that in any way would be doing an injustice to the award. As Ed said, there can be only one.

Lil' Lavery
06-09-2006, 02:33 PM
What if, instead of additional Chairman's award winners per regional, those that won the award would be eligible to present at the Championships for more than one year? It would be like the WFA. I'd suggest a 2-year limit - it would effectively double the number of entries at the Championships. It would be a more difficult judging process, I'll grant that, so I wouldn't suggest a longer time limit. I woudn't think that teams would get a Chairman's one year and then completely slack off the next - and if any did, they wouldn't be judged very highly at the Championships.
The problem I see with that is it adds around 30 teams to the "Guaranteed" spot pool each year for Championship, along with the HoF Teams, last year's CA honorable mentions (which would now be qualified under a previous year regional CA winner), EI winner, and 1992 teams. That means 30 less spots for teams to attend without winning an event.
Additionally, the time limit is another huge factor, as you mentioned. I'm sure judging 33 teams is hard enough, let alone around 70+ (new regionals each year). Most regional events only have 10-20 entries for CA, usually no more than 15 or so.

Richard Wallace
06-09-2006, 03:19 PM
The problem I see with that is it adds around 30 teams to the "Guaranteed" spot pool each year for Championship, along with the HoF Teams, last year's CA honorable mentions (which would now be qualified under a previous year regional CA winner), EI winner, and 1992 teams. That means 30 less spots for teams to attend without winning an event. ...Why is it better to have more unearned Championship spots, rather than allocate those spots based on competition results or judged awards?

Vu2000
06-09-2006, 07:18 PM
Wouldn't that create conflicts with scheduling Chairman's speeches with 60+ teams?

Billfred
06-09-2006, 08:08 PM
Wouldn't that create conflicts with scheduling Chairman's speeches with 60+ teams?
You can find more judges. ;)

The way I see it, there should be one Regional Chairman's Award winner at each regional. Honorable mentions are well and good, and perhaps should be made a Championship qualifier at exceptionally large events (think GTR). But I definitely agree with Ed's comment (which, if you have read the thread, you've seen quoted enough times as it is ;)).

artdutra04
06-09-2006, 09:42 PM
There can be only one....I couldn't have said it any better myself. There is, and should only be one Chairman's Award.

There is only one Chairman's Award for a reason, and that is to show to the rest of the community who the movers and shakers teams are for their support of FIRST and its values. Although I support the idea of letting the runner-up teams know that they were close to winning, I do not support the idea of creating an official "Chairman's Honorable Mention" award. If all we keep doing is create ten billion awards for every last little thing in FIRST, then all we are doing is diluting the meaning of each award.

As it is now, only a few teams will win awards each year. Without trying to sound elitist, that is the way it should stay. For when there are a lot of teams all trying to win a small number of awards, then every team will try nth harder just to put themselves ahead of the rest. By limiting the number of awards, you are increasing the effort needed to win. Those few teams who do win will most definitely deserve that award.

Victory and success will not find you - you must find them. ;)


P.S. This post may be a little biased, because three long years of hard work has finally paid off for me. I won a $60,000 scholarship today. :D
But at the same time this does not mean that I am done. I still have a year of high school left and a full hand of cards to play. :p

Kyle Love
06-09-2006, 09:45 PM
There can be only one....

I agree. If theres more then one, it takes away some of the prestige...

John Gutmann
06-12-2006, 10:31 AM
There can be only one....

Amen.

Kims Robot
06-12-2006, 12:38 PM
I agree. If theres more then one, it takes away some of the prestige...

I have to say, mostly because of logistics, I agree with the only one statement... Plus its a very big award, and in a sense the limelight belongs to the best of the best... but nowadays, the choices arent easy, there are LOTS of good teams, lots of deserving teams...

So I have a thought (seeing the other side of the coin) about the prestige... for those of you that remember, there used to only be one "national champion". FIRST decided teamwork was a better way to go, and why not have more "winners"... so why should this be so different with Chairmans? What if there are two teams that we should be emulating at the regionals? or two teams in the world that are great rolemodels? or even stranger, what if two teams wanted to work together for Chairmans?

I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". Maybe with the size of FIRST, with the number of phenomenal teams out there, this needs to be rethought?

I dunno... just trying to see the opposing viewpoint.

Joe Matt
06-12-2006, 01:10 PM
I have to say, mostly because of logistics, I agree with the only one statement... Plus its a very big award, and in a sense the limelight belongs to the best of the best... but nowadays, the choices arent easy, there are LOTS of good teams, lots of deserving teams...

So I have a thought (seeing the other side of the coin) about the prestige... for those of you that remember, there used to only be one "national champion". FIRST decided teamwork was a better way to go, and why not have more "winners"... so why should this be so different with Chairmans? What if there are two teams that we should be emulating at the regionals? or two teams in the world that are great rolemodels? or even stranger, what if two teams wanted to work together for Chairmans?

I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". Maybe with the size of FIRST, with the number of phenomenal teams out there, this needs to be rethought?

I dunno... just trying to see the opposing viewpoint.

But we're talking about a whole nother animal when it comes to alliances. Alliances worked together to achieve that goal, two or three teams don't work together to win the chairmans award. They don't do the same things, work with eachother, do the same presentations together. Chairmans from the start has been about recognizing one team as outstanding, and the addition of the regional chairmans award was the origional push to recognize more teams for that honor.

Al Skierkiewicz
06-12-2006, 01:41 PM
Kim,
In listening to John Aberle present the Chairman's a few words stand out..."As we have come to expect from the best of our best..."

In reference to the Honorable Mentions... "These teams are achieving First's ultimate goal of transforming the culture..." and "It takes a major and sustained effort that these teams have risen to the challenge."

Finally..."Representing the spirit of First demands many diverse achievements demonstrated over many years."

JaneYoung
06-12-2006, 02:37 PM
There is only one.
Simplicity is a key to keeping this in perspective.

However, the landscape is changing and will continue to change. It was so cool to learn about 1188's team mates in South Africa who do the team website. This is just one great example of how creative our FIRST teams are becoming and how they are developing in so many areas, collaboration becoming more focused and respected and more diverse.
FIRST is maturing, teams are maturing, rookie teams are being mentored by alumni of other teams, teams are working together more and more - these are exciting times and will only become more exciting with each passing year. It is great to be part of it.
Jane

Richard Wallace
06-12-2006, 02:43 PM
... I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". ...Kim, I think you have a valid point here, so I don't mean to slice this too thinly -- but don't we all agree that FIRST has never been about having "the Best Robot(s)"? I don't think there has ever been an award given for the the best robot. Some design awards recognize the best robot features, the tournament results recognize the best performance of robots as operated by their teams, and the RA, EI, and CA recognize the best team efforts toward our common goals.

It always grates on me a little when I read, hear, or see a media piece on FIRST describing it as a competition to build the best robot. Makes it sound like a dog show or a science fair ...

santosh
06-12-2006, 03:26 PM
Personally, I would like to see multiple honorable mention teams like they do at Nationals.
Recieving an honorable mntion certainly puts tons of hopes in the hearts of many that did not win the whole thing.
I also thinks that having 1 winner makes it a lot more competitive and desirable.

Dave Flowerday
06-12-2006, 03:35 PM
Recieving an honorable mntion certainly puts tons of hopes in the hearts of many that did not win the whole thing.
The sword cuts both ways, so to speak. Honorable mention can also make not winning more painful in 2 ways. First, and this happened to us last year at the Championship, if you are not the winner and do not receive honorable mention, you might now feel like, "Gee, not only did we not win, but we're not even in the top 4!". With no honorable mention there can sometimes be comfort in thinking that maybe you were just a bit shy of the winner perhaps finished second. On the other hand, I could see where being announced as a runner-up could be painful too, because of the feeling that you must have been so close and barely missed it.

Maybe I'm wrong and no one feels this way, but I'm just trying to point out that expanding the number of teams recognized could have unintended side-effects. What if you had a regional that had only a handful of submissions? How would a team feel if there were five submissions, and a winner and three runner-ups were announced, effectively leaving one team in last place?

santosh
06-12-2006, 04:08 PM
Wow, that is a side of this arguement that I never saw. I guess you are right. But, this could help a team gauge their own ranking amongst some of the other top teams. It could help them gauge how much to step their game up.
Maybe maybe not. But I completly see your side of the arguement.

EDIT: BEST Robotics actually does their judging by a point system and they give you the ranking list of all the teams and break it down by the different sections they score you by. I don't think that it offends many teams, but then again it doesn't seem as if the BEST award (analagous to the Chairman's Award) is as big of deal to many teams in that competition.
(not actually sure of the compelete relavence to this discussion there is)

AmyPrib
06-12-2006, 04:21 PM
Wow, that is a side of this arguement that I never saw. I guess you are right. But, this could help a team gauge their own ranking amongst some of the other top teams. It could help them gauge hw much to step their game up. Maybe maybe not. But I completly see your side of the arguement.

I don't necessarily agree that a team should gauge their own ranking against other top teams. I think it's an inherent instinct to do so, but their "rank" should not urge them to "step it up" just because they were shy of winning the award. They should want to step it up regardless of where they placed. There is a fine line between looking at a role model team to emulate them and stepping up your game to look better for CA.

It's hard to compare teams and each of their activities and impact. One team's idea of "stepping it up" may not be what the judge determines as the winner anyways, so you just do what you feel is important as a team and portray those stories when CA times comes around.

I agree with Flowerday's assessment. Some regionals do only have a handful of submissions and I would not want anyone to be on the receiving end of knowing they were the only ones not recognized. Among that and other reasons, I still believe it should remain one at the regional level.

JaneYoung
06-12-2006, 04:59 PM
It is good to embrace who you are and where you come from. How much experience your team has garnered. The personality and makeup of the team. To find the rhythm of FIRST and to establish the team rhythm. When these are understood, then team members can enter and leave as new members and as graduates yet the consistency of understanding is there and is handed down through time and mentoring. A first year team can not have gained the experience of the 7th year team - it takes all the 7 years of growth, build, competition, working on the different aspects of FIRST. And it takes patience and humor while growing. It's the journey that is the true value and it is that which will sustain you. The teams that achieve the Chairman's are worthy and have found ways to understand and work on all of the aspects and have been patient. No easy task.

Edit: I'm sorry, I'm not saying only an older more experienced team can garner the CA but I am saying experience is a great help in the effort and it is the teacher.

Kims Robot
06-12-2006, 09:01 PM
Kim, I think you have a valid point here, so I don't mean to slice this too thinly -- but don't we all agree that FIRST has never been about having "the Best Robot(s)"? I don't think there has ever been an award given for the the best robot. Some design awards recognize the best robot features, the tournament results recognize the best performance of robots as operated by their teams, and the RA, EI, and CA recognize the best team efforts toward our common goals.
Richard, you did slice it "a bit" too thinly... if you look at everything else in the world that I have ever said, I obviously dont believe FIRST is about the robot :) :) :) I was just using it as a comparison piece... and frankly I was getting bored of everyone only seeing one side of the picture. Thats the only reason I brought it up.

When I started my post, I really believed there should only be one chairmans award winner... but I was determined to see the other side, the reason this thread was started... and give it a shot. By the time I was done... I really wasnt certain why we only have one winner... the whole idea of the chairmans winner is that the team is a role model team for all to emulate. We have all the hall of fame teams now, so why each year is there only one team that is good enough to be our role model? If you look at Karthik's thread, there are a lot of teams that are role models to other teams.

"These teams are achieving First's ultimate goal of transforming the culture..." and "It takes a major and sustained effort that these teams have risen to the challenge."

And Al, not to nitpick, but the word above is "TEAMS" Not team, single, as one chairmans award would imply.

And this may take this thread in another direction (perhaps not a good one), but if teams can collaborate and build the same robot... why cant teams collaborate on the chairmans award? what would judges do if two teams gave the same presentation? **Im not at ALL saying I condone this... Im just bringing up food for thought**

Al Skierkiewicz
06-13-2006, 06:34 AM
Kim,
The "teams" is a reference to the three honorable mention Chairman's teams. Those teams listed as Honorable Mentions are very good at getting THE message out. It is very hard to get Chairman's because there are so many teams that are doing a great job. When a team looks at all the Regional winners, you can tell how hard it actually is. This year alone, Regional winners included Beatty (71), Technokats (45) and Thunder Chickens (217) and those people have some of the best programs ever. Yet above those programs Moe (365), Frog Force (503) and Falcon Robotics (842) were named at the Championship. So in my mind, the RCA winners are right up there with all of these teams and we are all doing what we can to change the culture, foster gracious professionalism, and inspire young people wherever we go.

OZ_341
06-13-2006, 07:07 AM
I actually like the idea of honorable mention because its additional feedback. Although there was a certain level of frustration being the Championship Honorable mention in two consecutive years, it did send the message that we were still on track. Once the pain is gone you have the knowledge that you are right there knocking on the door, so to speak.

Under the old system you had no idea where you stood.

But in the end you have to just do what you do as a team. You can't wait around for external rewards. Just have fun and help others. Thats what our team focuses on every year. Otherwise winning the Championship Chairmans award could turn into your worst nightmare. The recognition ( like fame ) will come and go, what counts is what you do every day to make things better.

Richard Wallace
06-13-2006, 08:30 AM
Richard, you did slice it "a bit" too thinly... if you look at everything else in the world that I have ever said, I obviously dont believe FIRST is about the robot :) :) :) I was just using it as a comparison piece... and frankly I was getting bored of everyone only seeing one side of the picture. Thats the only reason I brought it up.

When I started my post, I really believed there should only be one chairmans award winner... but I was determined to see the other side, the reason this thread was started... and give it a shot. By the time I was done... I really wasnt certain why we only have one winner... the whole idea of the chairmans winner is that the team is a role model team for all to emulate. We have all the hall of fame teams now, so why each year is there only one team that is good enough to be our role model? If you look at Karthik's thread, there are a lot of teams that are role models to other teams.Please accept my apology, Kim. :o I really did not mean to imply that you (or anyone here) thinks that FIRST is about the robot. My point was only that having the best robot is not sufficient, nor even necessary, to win an event.

Back to the subject. I agree there should be only one CA each year. But (as I've said before (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=482124#post482124)), as FIRST adds regional events, the opportunities for regional medals and awards increase proportionally. And there's still just one Championship, so just one team per year gets into the HOF. Many exemplary teams may never make it in, because other exemplary teams are developing every year.

I think FIRST needs a new way to recognize the inspiration that newer teams (like mine) get from veteran teams that sustain great programs.

E.L.I.T.E. 48
06-27-2006, 10:43 AM
It sounds crazy but what if there were two Chairmans Winners at each Event. It would make it so deserving teams have a chance even against dynastic powerhouse chairmans teams like 1002, 1108, 365, 233, and 79. It is just a thought and has anyone else had this thought?
No there should only be one winner because if there were 2 or 3 then you would take away the honor in winning it. It took my team 8 years to win our first Chairmans award and we had to work our butts off for it and now we have 2 but we had to earn it. I don't think we should make it easier to win the highest award in FIRST and if we did that whats next 2 winners. If I come off as rude I'm sorry but this is how I feel.