Chief Delphi - Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Rookie Awards Ethics Question (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126987)

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1347950)

The easy way to tell if FIRST has been satisfied that the new team meets all the rookie criteria is the team number that they are assigned.

This year for instance, Rookies are only those teams with numbers 4900 and higher.
They are the only teams eligible for rookie awards.

New "veteran" teams, like 193 was last year (rookie #'s started at 4450 last year), are given new team numbers that are below this year's 4900, usually a never been assigned number that is close to any associated parent/sibling team number. None of these new teams are eligible for rookie awards of course.

This year we have 389 rookies eligible for awards and 10 new veteran teams not eligible for rookie awards.
Not eligible new teams:
265
746
1786
3134
3886
4413
5515
4416
4418
4524

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing this information. Why is 5513 considered a non-rookie but has a higher number than 4900?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carolyn_Grace (Post 1348106)

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing this information. Why is 5513 considered a non-rookie but has a higher number than 4900?

Because I cannot transcribe. (I see you share my problem :))
It's 44 rather than 55

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1347950)

Not eligible new teams:
265
746
1786
3134
3886
4413
4415
4416
4418
4524

I believe 1285 should be on this list too.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Yes, they should.
Apologies to 1285.

The number had previously attempted to be issued in 2011 for a Sarasota, FL new vet, but they never competed and the number was returned to the never issued fold.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1347950)

Ah, but FIRST can only provide that based on the information the team provides. I personally know of a situation where a team above 4900 has received a Rookie Grant and should be excluded from Rookie status based on criteria 6 (over 5 previously competing FRC students) unless a waiver was issued.

However, the original question seems to have been drifted away from, so I'll focus it a little bit....

If a team is awarded Rookie status but has a decided leg-up in experience over other Rookie teams (8 members out of 15 with more than two years each in FRC), should they decline consideration for Rookie awards?

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by DELurker (Post 1348348)

And these waivers are issued from time to time. 5180 is based at Blythewood HS, where 1959 competed until 2011. In theory, they're within the three years and under the rules would've had to revive the old number. But considering there's only one student even left at the school from that era, the 2011 1959 squad only registered one match win at their lone regional, new teacher in charge, and so on, they apparently succeeded in getting FIRST to agree they're rookies. No disagreement from me.

Quote:

However, the original question seems to have been drifted away from, so I'll focus it a little bit....

If a team is awarded Rookie status but has a decided leg-up in experience over other Rookie teams (8 members out of 15 with more than two years each in FRC), should they decline consideration for Rookie awards?

If they do not meet the criteria of a rookie team and haven't been given an exception from FIRST, then they're not a rookie team. While I've never heard of a team getting renumbered mid-season, I'd hope they would get this across to the judges.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

I personally know of a team issued a number over 4900 that at its inception had 3 students with 3 years experience, 1 student with 2 years experience, and 1 student with one year experience. Now this team has 2 additional students with one year experience and 10 new members. This team formed after a split with an established team due to mentor/student issues. This team has maintained their gracious professionalism and not aired their issues with this previous team nor have they brought their very valid concerns to FIRST.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod (Post 1348114)

Because I cannot transcribe. (I see you share my problem :))
It's 44 rather than 55

The problem with trying to type on CD from my iPhone. :o

Though I've been part of FIRST for 11 years, I did not know that there were different ways to rank "new" FRC teams. I just assumed that a new team was a new team and given rookie status, so this thread is an interesting read for me.

I do know that starting a team, whether with experienced mentors/students or not, is a very difficult thing to do. I've also found that teams often struggle more their 2nd and 3rd years, due to loss of mentoring from other teams.

I'd be hesitant to say that a team should ethically turn down a rookie award without being in their shoes and knowing what they went through to create their team.

Re: Rookie Awards Ethics Question

I feel if a team was made and then had to overcome common rookie issues (funding,resources,etc.), even if that means partnering with a veteran team, then they deserve the awards. Say High North wants to help rookie High East, High East is still a rookie team. However, if a team was made from the get go to be a "freshmen" or "2nd" team, then they should disqualify themselves from rookie awards.

So teams started by former members of other teams are still a rookie team if they had to start from scratch.