Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

Amen.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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."

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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 ...

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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?

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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)

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

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**

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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.

Re: Two Chairmans Winners Per Event
 

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), 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.