Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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:.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

Here is how it should be:

1 Regional Chairman Winner

1 Regional Chairman Runner-Up Winner

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

Why is it better to have more unearned Championship spots, rather than allocate those spots based on competition results or judged awards?

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

Wouldn't that create conflicts with scheduling Chairman's speeches with 60+ teams?

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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 ;)).

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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