The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Hi all,

I know we are all neck-deep in build right now but I had a question that I am hoping might clarify to the community what is generally necessary to win a RCA.

How has the image of what a Chairman's team changed over the last five to ten years? What was expected of a team in 2005 or earlier compared to 2010 and so on?


Best -
Daniel

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

I tell any team that wants to win this award to have a genuine cause that they are devoted to. Teams should work as a whole and share a common passion while promoting their ideals throughout their community and FIRST. The days of throwing a food drive and a fundraiser are gone and this isn't the purpose of this award. Teams should be motivated and get emotional about it!

I really believe teams have to go big here, often moving the focus from the robot to their mission. Build season is only a short period of the year and the most inspiring RCA winners devote their entire year to other causes.

Essays from 2015 winners are a huge resource and share common threads.


http://www.firstinspires.org/node/4881

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Nowadays, at least in California, it takes international outreach to have a chance at the Chairman's Award. My team has been to China to start robotics programs for middle schoolers. Some other areas of the world I know teams in California have gone to is South and Central America (e.g. Brazil, Mexico) for outreach efforts. 604 has 8 Regional Chairman's Awards and they have the most in California. Looking at their program would give anyone a good idea of what a Chairman's quality team is. My team has gotten so close to Chairman's, winning Engineering Inspiration at Sacramento in 2013 and 2015. Maybe this year will be our year.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

I want to point out that EI is not officially "close" to Chairman's.

Nor, do I know of any criteria that requires "international outreach" to win.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

We view EI as a Chairman's runner up. I'm not implying that the award itself is of "close" value, just that getting IE is a step closer to getting Chairman's. If you read my post carefully, I only claim that my team has gotten close, not that IE itself is close. A lot of the things we present for Chairman's is considered for IE. I did not claim that international outreach was required criteria. It surely is not, but from what I have seen, it's a trend and it is increasingly difficult to contend with teams who do international outreach.

My apologies for not being clear on that.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

It's kind of disheartening for teams like us who can't afford trips to China, yet we do our hardest to change our community.

The Chairman's Award, at times, seems to have a price tag attached to it. And along with the price tag comes a sort of "number supersizing" where one team has to start/assist/mentor X amount of teams and reach out to X amount of people to be worthy.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Which leads to teams attending regional competitions based on their chance of winning an award. Its a crazy system.

I wonder, if a RCA winner only got the opportunity to PRESENT at champs, and not compete, would people put in the extreme effort?

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

We've always viewed EI much the same, and been told that by folks doing the judging.

With regards to the original quesion: the difference between 2005 and now.

In 2005 if you had a dedicated team of students who worked their butts off for several years running and did every event that came their way locally etc, started some teams etc, then you had a good chance of snaring a chairman's award.

Now? Look at the resumes of some of the recent winners. Starting 2 or 3 FRC teams and a couple of FTC and Lego teams each year along with local outreach and even reach across state lines simply doesn't do it anymore.

I believe 27's Washington initiative put them over the top. They had the resume for a long time, but there's a number of teams who have a similar resume of doing dozens of *big* off season events, and pulling in huge numbers of people. Starting teams. etc. The stat that always struck me with Simbotics was the '45' Vex teams started in one year.

These really aren't things that students alone are going to be able to pull off. They need mentors fully dedicated to winning a chairman's as well. Beyond that, you need the connections to organizations that can help you make that change - and then you need the money to fund the travel (or get some very kind sponsors who do it).

So that's what changed. To win Chairman's now you need an incredible resume and then you also need a huge initiative of some sort - be in national or international. Many of those ideas are going to need financing to pull off. You need mentors and students dedicated to winning it - mentors that quite literally will work year round to do it. Every one of these things is something teams can develop with extremely hard sustained effort.

The level of the chairman's 'bar' has raised geometrically between 2005 and now. Look at the last 3 year's winners, find out everything you can about what they did, replicate it, then substantially improve on it. You'll realize that it's not something that happens in 1 year, or even 3 years.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Well, before the China trip, we didn't have the funds to do anything international. It was disheartening, but we used that as motivation to find a way to make it work It's great that a team can do international outreach, but I honestly value local outreach more. I think we have to change our own communities before we change the world. IIRC, the main reason we went to China was because we were invited to present about robotics education from someone who knew our team and had connections to the middle school we went to. We graciously took the opportunity, and although I was not able to go myself, I know that our students had a great outreach experience and a cultural experience.

I have some of my own connections to my hometown in the Philippines regarding education, and I hope to start some robotics based programs there too in the near future. To others, this may seem like international outreach, but for me personally, that would be local. I'd like to do this whether or not my team has any involvement in it, but it would be great if they did.

Remember that Chairman's Award is just that: An award. Not winning it doesn't mean your efforts are lesser than the winners. The things teams do to get Chairman's Award should not be motivated by the award itself, but by the impact of their deeds.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

As (mostly) engineers, it's easy to pick out and remember the "numbers" in the awards presentations you see. And numbers certainly are a concrete way to distinguish yourself from other teams, and give the judges a certifiable reason to select your team as a Chairman's Award winner.

However, there's a lot more to Chairman's than just the numbers. I'm lucky to be able to work in the shadows of the Mid-Atlantic's three Hall of Fame members, and to witness two of the three of them before they picked up the Championship edition of the award. John Larock (365) and Al Ostrow (341) have stressed that there is a "heart" element to the award that must be fulfilled. You must communicate to the judges the impact your team has on a personal level. The judges have to be able to sense that your team "gets it."

While the big numbers of teams started/mentored/assisted/etc and the flagship outreach programs in other continents are impressive, that alone isn't going to win you an award. You need to show that your team and you community is feeling the impact. That your team has a role model culture worth sharing. With the 1114 video, they had both their "45 other robots competition teams" with their "Big Simbot, Little Simbot" program.

In terms of how this has changed since a decade ago, my view is a little different. If anything, the bar isn't quite as high as it used to be in the Mid-Atlantic. Part of that is the swap to districts creating more award opportunities. Part of that is that the New Jersey regional had a long history of the same team never winning RCA twice. Part of that is that 365 and 341 are in the Hall of Fame, and not claiming RCA trophies each season. Part of it may be that the Mid-Atlantic is rather saturated in terms of team growth, so there isn't a whole lot of opportunities for constantly starting and mentoring new teams. That's not to say that the teams that are winning the award these days aren't incredible role models. Each of them has a tremendous impact on their communities and have built very strong programs. But I think the fact that the two teams recognized at MAR Champs this previous year didn't really have that flagship singular outreach effort or huge quantity of teams founded demonstrates that being able to effectively communicate your impact on a local level is still a viable path to the Chairman's Award.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

I look at it slightly differently. With the district model, you are going up against the same teams every single year - and some of those teams are monstrous when it comes to chairman's programs. Up till just recently, we knew that we were going to have to go up against 27 every single year - plus teams like 33, 548, etc. With the new 'presenting at multiple districts' model, it makes it that much more likely that those same teams will show up every year because they can't knock eachother out by presenting at the same district.

I think (like everything else in the district model) you end up with better teams going to worlds at the end through the system, but it also means that to break into the 'big time', you're going to have to take down the big dogs every year.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Also - I should have said congratulations! Helping start China's FIRST programs is incredibly inspirational.

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

I feel that's largely a consequence of the teams in an area. Teams that attended the Philadelphia regional had that experience for quite a while with 341 and 365 under the regional system. There were trickle effects out to other regionals as well (Chesapeake, Virginia, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, etc). I know while I was on 116 it was somewhat of a factor in deciding where we would submit particular years (though so was competition schedule, and competing against 612 or 1002 in their Chairman's primes was not a favorable decision, either).

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

Here's a relevant thread from 2010 about 341 winning Chairman's at the FIRST Championship.

Chairman's Award -- is the bar too high now?

Re: The Evolution of Chairman's Teams
 

On one, having overheard discussion of RCA vs EI among judges, they are considered "close."

International outreach may not be an official criteria, but universally in California seems to be becoming a de facto standard.