New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I'm surprised that no one has posted about this.

Obtained from here.

This change is interesting to say the least. I'm curious as to what prompted it.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Ditto that. Anyone have a heads up on this? Or a reason why? I don't recall ever being involved in a discussion or hearing a recommendation for this revision. It was my understanding that one of the reasons for establishing the HoF was to remove these teams from the very stiff competition for Chairman's Awards. It is increasingly difficult (as you all know) to win a CA or RCA. There is no restriction on HoF teams to not perform well enough to earn a CA - in fact, we should be really obligated to do so even if it is not officially judged. So the point of this is totally lost on me.


-

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Interesting as to why. But it sounds like an awesome challenge to live up to these great HoF teams who everyone will be competing against once again (hopefully most of them still enter for Chairmans) Should be awesome.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Koko Ed has talked about being an older HoF team a couple of times that I remember here in ChiefDelphi, regarding FRC 191, the X-Cats, and the HoF win(s).

My thinking is that so much time passes for the older HoF teams that the win can lose its edge and/or the value can become obscured for the current team members that were not around when that award was garnered.

I understand what Meredith is saying but we are working with teenagers who won't necessarily make that connection. I think it could breathe new life into the teams involved in this change and give them the inspiration to go for it - again.

This is just an opinion, I don't know what prompted the change, but I like that it presents new opportunities and possibilities for the teams involved and their fellow competitors.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Not to get too morbid but when an individual gets older, wins accolades, retires, gets the gold watch, and rides off into the sunset that is an expected lifecycle. The person dies, hopefully after a satisfying and productive life. A natural thing.

A team is not a person. It is an institution that is living breathing dynamic thing that evolves and adapts to new challenges and situations. It isn't fair to the team or its benefactors that they get permanently 'benched'.

Giving the team a 5 year break is a great idea. It is a good time to reflect and think about what they really want to achieve next and it will help motivate the troops when they get back in the game.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

But in future they won't actually be able to look forward to a 5 year break.
They'll need to be performing at Chairman's level several years in advance of their submission, just to have stuff to talk about.
So, before the last of the original freshmen are gone they'll have to be hard at work again.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Would this mean that after 5 years they lose their automatic Championship eligibility status also? One thing that should be brought up is that with HoF status comes automatic eligibility for the CMP.

If they continue to compete... and they win... they are now double qualified and take up two of the qualifiers....eliminating some non-HoF team from qualifiying for nationals by winning a Regional CA.

I am not sure how I feel about that... but I guess its no different than one of the Hof teams qualifying as a Regional Winner and that has happened many times.

interesting

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I understand why it was done, I think, but I don't like it at all. No other sport requires a Hall of Fame member to "re-qualify"

That's the purpose of a Hall of Fame. To stand forever as a representation of greatness. No re-qualifying needed. I think this kinda ruins the aspect of what FIRST has created with it's Hall of Fame.

This seems like a step towards "What have you done for me lately?" kinda deal. I always assumed HoF teams have kept doing great things since they won and that was that. I liked it like that and I think it should have stayed that way.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Bob,

Unless FIRST misprinted their intentions, HOF teams can only win RCA, not CCA.

I'm curious why this wasn't one of the issues that Bill has posed to the HOF teams over the last 4-5 months. I don't really see a need for this rule to have changed.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

It doesn't say anything about re-qualifying. I think its really just to give teams an incentive again to keep doing what they did when they won the Championship chairman's. These teams have so much to give that FIRST still wants them to keep giving and showing everyone else how its done.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I don't get it.

One of the main reasons one would want to win the RCS is to have a shot at Championship Chairman's in Atlanta. As these teams would have already won it, they're inelgible there as far as I can tell (the rule doesn't say anything about HoF status dropping / whatever), so this would mean that teams of "Hall of Fame quality" would be denied judgement at Championship because a Hall of Fame team beat them at a a regional.

I'm pretty sure no Hall of Fame teams stop outreaching to the communty and in general beign Chairman's-calbier just because they've already won it for life, and none of them are only motivated to do such actions because they could win a trophy if they do but otherwise don't see the point.

If I understand it correctly, this could give teams like mine, who don't submit at regionals with Hall of Fame teams at them (as far as I know, sorry if I missed one), a much better shot at the national title than teams from regions with national winners. I don't think that's really fair.

I have a question for CCA teams: Would you resubmit for Regional Chairman's?

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Correct me if I am wrong but HoF teams are required to submit a Chairman's Award document every year despite being ineligible to win anything for it. Barring that, teams the win CCA don't do it for the award, that is basically an unexpected perk. I'm sure that many teams know full well they never have a realistic chance at HoF status yet they still do good stuff.

As for the claims it is unfair, so is capitalism. Last I checked 90% of us lived in a country that reveres capitalism. If you want to complain about FRC, "OH NOES! Team XYZ has a budget that is 2x mine whatever will I do?" Try going into the business world and competing against someone with 150x your budget and 200x your size. Consider it good training. (And all you HoF teams, you now have a big target on your back, I hope I'm not the only one coming to beat you)

Really though, the decision has been made and whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, I just hope that FIRST will bestow some of its wisdom on us so that we mere mortals can hope to understand why it was made.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Just because life and FIRST isn't supposed to be fair doesn't mean some attributes of fairness aren't ideal. I know life isn't fair, FIRST isn't supposed to be fair, yeah yeah.

Consider this situation (which is a very real possibility next year when 67 becomes elgible again and 51 is at the same event, taking 2 of 3 Michigan RCAs potentially). Say Team A is a Hall of Fame team. Team B, who is just a step behind Team A, but almost as good and better than every other non RCA team in the country, loses to Team A at a regional. Team C, who is worse than Team A and B but still very good, is good enough to win an RCA at a separate event. Team C could enter the Hall of Fame when Team B is better.

I just don't see the reason or positive impact that allowing old Hall of Famers to win regional chairman's again will have. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I didn't mean they have to officially "re-qualify" it just seems like that's what we are making them do by having them submit for the chance to win the award. What do the other teams that are in the HoF think about themselves when a year ago, they were all on the same level, Championship Chairman's Award Winners and HoF members. Now one of them wins? Are they above the rest now?

This just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.:confused:

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

This was true through 2008 but was not required for the 2009 season, I believe.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

1. I don't like the new criteria.
2. I don't like it because the reasoning hasn't been explained.
3. I agree with Andrew about the HoF teams having to submit without getting anything.
4. This (#3) may be why there's a possible return to RCA eligibility.
5. The sooner somebody explains why, the happier I'll be about this.

It's not that I think it's a bad idea (which I'm still unsure about), it's that I want to know why this is going to be the case.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

That would be like saying that Team A competed at a regional with 67,217,and 68 and lost despite being (in theory) just slightly less capable than those teams. Then having Team B which competed against 30 rookies and is, itself, only slightly worse than Team A. It would mean that Team B has a chance of qualifying for Atlanta over Team A who has a better robot (in this example) Team B could win the Championship when Team A is better.

Additionally, Team A is potentially mentally deficient in your example, I mean that in the most offensive way possible, if you see a team that has won RCA the last 6 years in a row competing at one competition and not at another (assuming you do two competitions and HAVE this choice) the only logical solution is to not submit it there. If you don't have that choice, then you should find a way to get that choice. Who knows, it might even give you a better chance of winning an RCA.

This sounds like a familiar concept, let us make sure everyone is equal. Competition is a GOOD thing, the stiffer competition you face the better you will be. My one regret from 2008? I never got to play against 1114. In your example Team A needs to grow up and BEAT 67/51.

I understand your concerns but I honestly don't think that giving teams more competition is a BAD thing.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I agree. I just think they are kinda ruining what the HoF and winning Championship Chairman's is supposed to mean.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

While I sympathize that teams in the HoF find themselves blackballed when it comes to culture changing awards, I do not think that this change is for the better.

Every year, the number of deserving RCA and CCA teams is growing far faster than the number of RCAs (a couple new regionals per year) and CCAs (a constant, one) given out. Putting even more deserving teams back into the pool just dilutes everyone's chances that much more. At older regionals, fantastic teams that have been of an RCA caliber for years already find themselves many spots down the pecking order simply because some others have been doing it longer. These teams now find themselves even further down the list.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

It's been awhile since I've been a part of this discussion directly (I've now spent more time with 1712 than with 103), but I was once part of some conversations with people like Ed and reps from other hall of fame teams about these types of rules. I'll qualify by saying that these convos were largely informal, but I do know that these comments/ideas were reaching FIRST HQ staff/management as far back as fall 2004/spring 2005 so it doesn't surprise me to see it in the rules.

The one thing that seemed easy to agree upon (in those informal conversations) was the notion that, as time went by and students graduated, students lost an understanding what the CA is all about without the new students being able to go through the process - particularly the interview. I'm glad for those students on those teams that will now again be able to participate in a process they weren't able to before.

However, when you weigh out the whole eligibility thing, what other qualification spots you might be "taking away" from others, etc - it gets a little muddy in my mind. Maybe some clarification will be forthcoming, but if I were to list questions, the list would go like this (yes, I have an idea what I think some of these answers would be, but I don't want to assume anything here):
1. If I'm a HofF team do I retain my automatic lifetime invite to the Championship?
2. If I'm a HofF team who won CCA more than five years ago, I still have my automatic bid to the CMP, and I win RCA this year, am I "taking away" a Championship CA opportunity from another (albeit nameless) team?
3. If I'm a HofF team and I win RCA, can I compete for the CCA?
4. As a HofF team who is eligible to compete for RCA (and if I still get my automatic CMP bid), am I expected to do the HofF display work and staff it in addition to the "regular" CA work we do during the year?

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

The Chairman’s Award has always been a big mystery. Very few, if any, people know exactly what it takes to win. (And in my opinion, that is what makes the award special and what keeps the quality so high.)

For the most part, the students on a team turn over every four years. So essentially, a team that won the Chairman’s Award four years ago could be a very different team today. And even more so for a team that won 8 years ago! We also need to recognize that it is not just the current year team that wins the Chairman’s Award, it is the hard work of all the team’s students and mentors from previous years… winning the Chairman’s Award is not something that just happens in one year.

Unlike typical Halls of Fame where individuals are recognized, the FIRST Hall of Fame recognizes a team. So “standard rules of Halls of Fame” do not fully apply. We need to look at the FIRST Hall of Fame differently.

I think FIRST is looking for ways to keep challenging and encouraging the past Chairman’s Award winning teams to continue moving forward, to continue showcasing and promoting FIRST in their communities and to not rest on their laurels.

I believe that opening up the Chairman’s Award to previous winners (after an appropriate black-out period) is a good thing. I think it will numerous benefits to FIRST, the FIRST community as well as those previous winning teams. Some of those benefits include: development of new community outreach strategies and continuing to raise the bar for all teams participating in FIRST.

I also believe that previous Chairman's Award winning teams who choose to re-compete for the award are not going to have an advantage over other teams. In fact, I think the bar will be a little bit higher for these teams, as they will need to show that they still have what it takes.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I like to think of the CCAs as a pantheon of teams at a level above the rest.
Therefore a very simple solution is to create a contest in which the CCAs compete against each other. (a Hall of Fame Contest) This gives other teams the chance to win the RCA without taking the competitive edge away from the CCAs.
The CCAs still get to compete (at an elevated level) and we eliminate all of those confusing questions that Rich identified.
We should also allow the CCAs to continue competing for a specific set of other regional awards as well. Kids on those teams need to have something to look forward too, like everyone else.
All we need is a few trophies and a challenge for the CCAs.
We can solve the whole thing once and for all to everyone's benefit.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

As a mentor for a HoF team who won a RCA after the establishment of the HoF (something I don't think was supposed to happen) I have, I believe, a unique perspective on this situation. (We had never before won an RCA as we won the CA before there were RCAs.)

Since we were required to do a Chairman's submission to retain our HoF status, we were sort of in the pool of teams competing at the regional level, though I don't think that was ever the intent. So we "accidently" won an RCA and everyone was excited and a little confused. But I had a real how-can-we-unring-this-bell moment of clarity when I heard Mr. Novak say, "Did you see the faces of the team who should have won this here?"

At that moment, I decided that being a HoF team meant something different than being a team competing for an RCA or CA. Not better, just different. I have spent the last 6 years pondering that and trying out things (mostly unsuccessfully, I admit) to define the HoF status and responsibilities for our team.

Until 2009, we were still required to submit for a CA and I would go to the officials of our regionals and inform them we would not be presenting for the award and explain why we were not in the running for an RCA.

I personally feel frustrated by this decision because it flies in the face of my contention that HoF teams are not merely RCA re-treads but should serve as a resource and inspiration for other teams. Like I said, we have not done a good job at this, but I thought we were at least working on it. As a HoF team, it is our responsibility to elevate others.

In my opinion only: if a HoF team desires another award, they should help another team win one.

-

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

The subject may boil down to two issues:

a) how do we qualify teams to attend the CMP
b) how do we keep HOF teams engaged and fresh

Regarding (a) - Forever is a very long time indeed and allowing teams to be automatically pre-qualified for the CMP based on the fact that they were HOF back 217 years agos is a real problem. Forever qualification is IMHO an unsustainable proposition. The view from their peers might go like "How can that sorry bunch of bums that won an award 217 years ago even be considered to attend today. They are not carrying their weigh at all - what a bunch of freeloaders". Again we are dealing with teams, not persons. There is a danger of cheapening the HOF award in a couple of hundred years. Not to mention how we fit all these freeloaders in the building.

Regarding (b) - Refreshing a team and getting it back on track to achieving RCA performance is challenging enough. It may not be a reasonable expectation for a new group of students, mentors, teachers to participate in a "Super HOF" when in reality maintaining RCA performance may be all they can keep up with.

What I said in 217 years is really gonna happen in less than 21.7 years.

If we are going to keep FIRST fresh, exciting and relevant we have to keep it a Meritocracy, not an Aristocracy. We really really want to reward the really great teams that make up the RCA, CA, HOF.....but..........

.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Do you really think this is a problem?

How many HOF teams are winning CCA and then ceasing all CA worthy activities?

I just don't see it.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I DO NOT see it is currently a problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO disrespect at all directed at any of the HOF group.

The comment I was making (and was in quotes) was from a hypothetical group of students 217 years from now. 217 years is a long long time.

I'm very interested in answering the questions - What is a HOF team to do ? What is the team to do 20 years from now ?

It isn't a scientific survey but I sense it is a question every HOF mentor and student struggles with.

IMHO - Our lives are not a state of being but a journey to somewhere. If I were ever so fortunate as to be associated with an HOF team then for me it would be a challenge figuring out where the "road less traveled" leads.

Apologies to all if there were any slight taken.

.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I'm not sure, but this is great news! In Hall of Fame team meetings with FIRST this has been discussed numerous times. I think it is great because once a team has won CCA, those students on the team at that time fade away and newer members don't fully understand what the Chairman's award entails. Teams over the years change because the students change. This is a great opportunity for CCA winning teams to have their newest members experience the Chairman's award.

Cass

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

To me, this is a great example of fixing something that never needed to be fixed.

2010 will be FIRST's 18th year, that means there can only be 16 HoF (191 has won two CA). Furthermore some of the HoF teams have folded, leading to even fewer teams eligible for automatic entry to the Championship. As I count there are only 12 sustaining HoF teams, which means less than 4% of the teams attending the Championship are HoF teams. We are a long-long way from worrying about filling the Championship with HoF teams. But this change doesn't effect their eligibility, so this is a moot point.

If the concern is really about keeping the HoF teams engaged, then create a HoF award that only HoF teams can compete for. However, I don't see keeping HoF teams engaged as an issue. It's not like 254, 103, 175, 16 or any of the other HoF teams just ceased all their community involvement after they won CCA. All of those teams still act as role models for other teams to learn from.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I would like to amend this statement to "If a team desires another award, they should help another team win one."

Similar to how Hall of Fame teams continue "CA worthy activities" long after winning, for some Regional Chairman's Award winning teams, winning a RCA once is enough validation of their efforts. They continue to "do the right things" even if they choose not to directly compete for a RCA in future seasons.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

There are 2 or 3 CCA teams that no longer compete at all for whatever reason. Admittedly, this also means that they don't take spots at the Championship.

For the vast majority of cases, though, you are quite correct. The HoF teams are maintaining their activities that got them there in the first place and adding new ones. Many of them also win their way in each year, regardless of HoF status.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I don't think this is about taking away a CMP spot from anyone. I think this is providing teams newer members with the same experience it's previous members had. Once a team becomes apart of the HOF, then the members on the team years following are missing a step in the FIRST process. That's just how I see it. lol

Cass

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

At the moment it isn't, Ed was merely remarking that a team could rest on its past accomplishments. FIRST is young, how many HoF teams are there (17?) Right now I am sure those teams are still tremendous role models, 2 decades from now what happens? Perhaps 254's school closed down and they lost their sponsors, should a team that builds the kit hoverbot and barely manages to do any community outreach still be a role model just because 2 decades ago they were? (I chose 254 because they were the CCA award winners my freshman year more than any other reason)

Making an analogy to the nonFRC world, should a singer who had a hit 20 years ago still be considered a modern sensation?

Ed does make a good point that HoF teams having a lifetime invite to Championships is a recipe for disaster. Yes these teams are amazing, yes I want to be one of them someday, but 20 years from now they shouldnt be able to say, "I won that award back in 2004 and I'm going to Championships based on that" Perhaps FIRST could have HoF teams reevaluated every 10 years or so and decide their HoF status. I don't mean to cheapen the HoF at all, just to make sure that teams are maintaining the moementum I don't think any teams now wouldn't demonstrate that they are not sustaining but I do believe that having the requirement on them to sustain would be a good thing. And 20 years from now, if we have to give up 37 slots at Championship because every single HoF team is sustaining, well I will be one happy guy.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

An email our team just received had the following answers to some questions:

- HOF teams who resubmit at the regional level and win are eligible to win at the Championship level that year
- HOF teams will always retain their automatic Championship eligibility regardless.
- HOF teams can set up a HOF booth even if they reapply
- A HOF team who re-wins the Championship CA doesn't earn any additional benefits other than getting to keep the Chairman's trophy for another year

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I think the major concern is how we see the Hall of Fame. We don't really put any context to it. We think that the teams that started in 1992 or 1998 or 2000 are the exact same team coming into 2010. They aren't the same team at all. They have the same number, some of the same mentors and maybe a similar winning strategy, but that in no way makes them the same team.

Think of it like this: The Yankees have won 23 world series titles, but Derek Jeter doesn't have 23 World series rings. He's a part of the team that has won that many, but thats team history. Therefore it makes perfect sense, that a FIRST team Hall of Fame team be remembered in context of the year they won it in, and not just consider every year after that team has the same caliber as it did years past. (sorry for using a yankees example for all you yankee haters out there.)

Instead of saying "this Hall of Fame winning team, Team 000!" we should stop and pause and remember that it was actually the 1990 Team 000 won that right to be called HoF, so the 2010 is not actually a HoF winning team. It's History calls it a Hall of Fame team, but itself isn't.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

The point from Jon about fixing something that didnt need fixing was good.
However, as a non-HOF member, we welcome it. If a HOF team is better than a non-HOF team or vice versa, then so be it.

I really dont think that its about ensuring HOF teams continuing what they did to get there.

I'd like to believe that FIRST, in its decision to elect 1 team to win the CCA, did so because they knew year in an year out, they would always be outstanding.

Personally, there is no secret that we have tried for the CA every year since 2006 (only applied once prior and won in 2003 at SVR). But we do the things we do, not because we're trying to win an award first and foremost,....its because its our team mission and goals.
More effort has been put in recent years only because we have a Hawaii regional and there are over 300+ organized Robotics teams now in the State of Hawaii, us being the first in 1999.

I'd like to think that the respective teams in their area are making the same impact and in doing so, can be recognized for their efforts in their RCA entry.

The field just got tougher and everyone has certainly stepped up their game.
I can think of a few teams off the top of my head from the mainland US that have a crack at it in the next 5 years, and I bet, I'll be right, with or without this new rule.:D

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I assume you mean the field got tougher as a result of this decision... if that's what you meant then I might disagree.

The field only got tougher IF some of the HOF teams choose to reapply (and that's assuming they will still have quality entries). I don't know that it's a given that any will reapply. Personally (not speaking for my team), I'd rather not compete for the CA again and instead see someone else win it (I'm not assuming that we'd win again if we applied, but if we don't apply then I know we won't win, so I figure the odds of someone else winning if we don't apply are as good as or higher than if we do).

If our team ever re-won the CA, I know we'd be excited. But I think that, honestly, a team who never won it before would be more excited and more inspired, and I'd rather see that. It's just human nature that the first time you reach a milestone it's much sweeter.

Personally, I just don't see a problem here that needs fixing, but if there really is a problem, then I agree with a previous suggestion that creating a separate award that only HOF teams can compete for would be a better solution.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

They've actually won 26.

Given the clarification posted a few posts ago by Dave, I agree with Al's idea. It seems like it's basically just to allow the HoF teams to keep attempting to put new hardware on their shelves (and hopefully causing them to "step up" their game since winning the trophy), so why have it come at the expense of other teams attempting to win the award? I second the thought of having a HoF recognition award.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Dave,
actually I meant that since the time some of the HOF teams have won, the field now is actually tougher. Hence, I agree with some of your points.
I'd bet that many of the non-HOF teams are doing just as much if not more based on the fact that HOF teams in the past provided a benchmark of success and layed the framework for other teams to follow and exceed.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Hey Cass! I'm with you 100% with the experience for new team members as I stated above. I'm sure you were probably in the same room at the same time when I talked about this years ago. I'm thrilled that 103 team members will once again have this opportunity.

However, if HofF teams remain pre-qualified and one wins RCA, there will indeed be one less team qualfied for the Championship than qualified under the previous set of rules. That being said, you can say the same thing for multiple regional winners, HofF teams that win on the field, etc. So I'm not sure how much weight that little thought should have, it was just one of the questions that came to my mind.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

zero. With the exception of those who no longer exist.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Thanks for sharing.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Maybe instead of Hall of Fame it should be more like a 5 Year Alcove of Fame ?

;)

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I speak for myself and not for the entire HOT Team, but I really like the new rule. It gives the "option" of resubmitting if the HOF team desires. It is not a requirement. I like it when teams have choices.

The HOT Team has taken the position, since winning the CCA in 2005, that they would help other teams to have the feeling of winning the CCA. Yes, all of the students from that team are gone...in fact they are now out of college and working. But we try to keep the dream alive by hanging our CCA banner in the middle of the machine shop, displaying the CCA trophies at the workplace and in the schools, and talking about the experience at meetings. I still remember the excitement of winning...from waking up at 4am to actually holding the Clock that evening. The team also relives that feeling by having the honor of creating a HOF display.

I would like to see every team have that experience. Even though the students on our team have not seen that excitement, as a team they get to experience some of it. Our team continues to perform as a HOF team. We are, in my opinion, still doing great things. Are we doing things greater than other teams? I don't know. I see some great things from other teams.

This year we are not eligable to compete as the new rule allows. I don't know how the team as a whole feels, but I don't want to submit again. I want to help other teams to win this award. In my opion, we need more diversity in the HOF. Adding the Ticks this year will be great. I have watched their activities for some time, and they have done great things. Adding another team of this caliber will be great. The HOF teams already display what they do, let's see what others are doing. I can think of about a dozen teams that I believe really deserve to be in the HOF. I don't want the HOT Team from preventing them from being a part of the HOF. The experience of submitting and standing before the judges would be good for the kids, but I don't want to take the trophy and HOF status from them.

As to another way of keeping the HOF teams working, I have talked to FIRST about having a separate competion and trophy just for the HOF teams...having the presentations to the judges done in a public meeting so others could watch and learn. No bites, yet.

From the HOT Team, good luck to all teams that submit for the CCA. Keep up the good work...and may the best team win in Atlanta.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Just as a thought...

What if a HoF team who opted to submit for an RCA used it to plug another deserving team that was submitting at the same event? I don't see anything against this, either in the 2009 rules or in the info we have now on this. Sort of the ultimate example--"We already have the CCA, so here's who we think would make a good addition to the HoF and why."

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I really like this idea. Very similar to a conversation I had with another team leader when we seriously considered delivering each other's presentation ... and had we had more time to get the presentation groups prepared, we probably would have done it.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

As long time mentor in First, my team worked with the understanding that the Chairman's Award was so special a team could only win it once. I still feel that way. I don't even think of the students on team when we received the award are no longer part of the team. Every student, every year is part of the Wildstang CA team (even those prior to the award) and they participate in HOF as though they were on that original team. As a HOF member, I know how hard the award is to achieve. Teams submitting for this award know it is getting harder every year. They listen to the description at the Champs and wonder how they could ever achieve the same quantity of good deeds that the winning team has achieved. I think we are turning teams away from the attempt. Regional directors know how few teams are even submitting for this award at the regional level. To allow past teams into the mix, I am afraid, would turn even more teams away. We should be helping teams become HOF teams instead of competing with them. We need to let teams know that this is an achievable goal and not be part of the competition.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I don't post much lately, but I just can't hold my tongue.

This rule change is just plain stupid. Why spend even one second on a rule that addresses only 1% of teams when there are MUCH bigger items to address. Whoever spent any time on this item at FIRST HQ simply wasted their time.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Paul, you're without a doubt one of my heroes in FIRST, but as a teacher I'll object to this statement. While I'm not 100% sure I'd implement it this way, it does allow students to participate in a process they couldn't participate in before. In my line of work we call that a "student-centered" decision. Suppose 217 were told it would never be allowed to compete on Einstein again? I bet we'd hear an awful lot from from <1% in those circumstances ;).

In the long run I'm not sure that this decision does anything but allow access to a student experience. While I'd prefer "cleaner" implementation - perhaps that separate classification that Al and Sean support, it's hard for me to argue with the face value concept here.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Chief Delphi is not an official FIRST communications path, so this would better be asked of FIRST officially, assuming you really want an answer.
I'd like to expand this to state that HoF teams are not necessarily better than any other team. In the year of their CCA award they WERE judged best of all teams. But not this year: they are different but not better.

By that I mean they are on an equal footing with any team submitting for RCA. They won't win it with a weak effort. Perhaps "they know what it takes" better than a non-HoF team to win CCA - but really, do you believe that? And if so, is that really an advantage?

Perhaps there ARE bigger fish to fry out there. Me, I see the added competition as healthy. If any HoF teams think they deserve RCA more than Team X: Bring It On!

Oh, yes, and between now and 20 years from now, someone will come up with something different, no worries.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I would like to bring up a perspective that I found very interesting;
From http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...50&postcount=1

Most of his post is unrelated to this though I suggest reading it because it shows a part of FIRST that I think some of us forget from time to time.

The part that was quoted shows a perspective of a student who came along a while after the CCA. The way I read that is, "I am trying to live up to the expectation that the team members before me set" Not living up to Dean or Woodie's expectations, but living up to the standards set by team that won that award and forever enshrined Baxter Bomb Squad as a role model in our eyes.

Whether or not this new rules change will impact this sort of thinking I can't tell you.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Thanks, Andrew. Nice find. How did you happen to dig this gem up?

Meredith, if you're reading -- has the poster that Andrew cited returned to visit the Bomb Squad?

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Same way I dig up most things, Spotlight finds em (or cross thread linking) and then I dump it away to my bookmarks folder for future use, I quite a few threads bookmarked for various things.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

So to this I think what needs to happen is that say if at a regional the RCA winner is a CCA winner, then the runner up to the RCA at that regional (not the EI winner, but the runner up) should be qualified to go to CMP. If at CMP the CCA winner so happens to be a former CCA winner, then the runner up should get to qualify for CMP. That's how I see the spot for CMP to be fair. Idk, just my two cents again.

Cass

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I think it is tough enough to chose the RCA recipient, imagine having to rank the RCA candidates so the runner up could be selected, and if they are a CCA recipient, then go to the next runner up... :eek:

The RCA is all about the team's embodiment of what FIRST is, and whether you won RCA or CCA previously shouldn't be part of that equation.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Well, I know in the past Honorable Mentions used to be made at Championship. But I agree, ranking would be near impossible.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

The honorable mentions weren't always who finished 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for the award, though.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I have said the EXACT same thing for years, even before my team won the CCA. The HoF teams should have an award to compete against each other for a HoF award. I like the idea of letting old CCA winners attempt to win a RCA and CCA again since the team as it stands now is completely different then when they won the award. Let the kids and new mentors learn the process of preparing for an interview and setting up a project with visuals and speeches. I always thought the whole idea of FIRST was so help inspire kids and get them ready for the business/educational world, why limit what kids can be part of because the team they joined won a CCA 12 years ago.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I stayed out this until I read what you said....help another team win one.That is exactly what we decided to do! I am glad you mentioned this! This is what I think HOF teams should do. It would help spread the message to more people. To me helping another team win one is the definition of gracious professionalism!

Championship Chairmans Teams - They're Back?!?!
 

So this means all these teams can come back and compete all over again??
191, (7), 151, 144, 47, (23), 120, 16, 22, 175, 103, 254

To be honest, I would wonder if these teams would want to... Im certain there has to be some sort of relaxation to finally winning and just going off to do what you do without having to video & write like crazy. Although maybe 5 years is enough of a breather/break, and its time to get the new kids in gear and give them the opportunity to present??

Although I have to say, I thought it was kind of fun growing 1511 in "the only town to have a two time championship chairmans award winner". Now that may be more common??

After reading all of the points here, I think there is a lot to chew on...

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I disagree with this... Elvis is still "the king" Michael Jackson is still "the king of pop", along with many many other greats that will be remembered for a very long time... despite the fact that perhaps at the ends of their careers and lives they werent the same people they were when they were at the height of their popularity. Its the idea that at that time, they did something revolutionary and affected SO many people, that they deserve our praise, and that people still worship them long after they died. Take art as an example, 90% of painters dont become famous until they are dead... long after their "useful period" has expired. Yet do we say that Michaelangelo doesnt deserve the fame anymore?

I dont see any team that wins at the championship level just sitting back and riding their way to championships... even 20 years from now. Every one of them worked to get where they are because of their ideals, not because of the award or the ride to championships.

Bingo & Bingo!! I remember our Rookie year, when 1511 won RAS, and we realized that we were still going to regionals, and might be taking the joy and amazement (and championship qualification) away from another rookie team, we immediately wrote a letter to the judges asking them not to consider us for RAS. It wouldnt have been as sweet, and it was definitely more amazing to watch the other teams win, knowing they could now join us down at championships. We did the same thing with the Engineering Inspiration award our second year. I have to imagine CCA is better on a much grander scale.

Personally... this makes me shudder... nearly uncontrollably... while the intention is good, I can see it becoming a political mess for the judges to sort out... which team has the most friend teams... Ugh.

I love everything you said in your post Al... Not because it makes the pool easier, but its so much more noble for a HoF team to be helping the teams around it rise to its level, rather than going up to bat against them. If I didnt know so many of the HoF teams, I would be worried that things like the championship "creating a chairmas submission" type conferences would go away, because everyone would be striving to compete again.

I have to wonder if you are right... all the HoF teams I know are so amazing, and amazingly nearly every HoF team has been able to instill that attidude throughout the team. Sure each new kid doesnt know what its like to run down to the stage and receive the trophy, but they are now expected to act like they did, they must live up to that greatness, up to that level, and make their teams just as proud. Thats a big weight to carry, but a whole level that didnt seem to be considered in this new rule...

Thinking through all this, I really hope that all the CCA teams choose not to submit (to prove a point), or even better, choose to submit to give their kids the opportunity to present, but at the end of their presentation, ask only for feedback, ask NOT to be considered for the trophy... Not to say they would have to follow this, but I personally dont want my ideal picture of all of these amazing teams to change... I dont want to compare them to the new CCA competition... I want them to be the great teams I remember the years they won.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

I do believe that the winning teams deserve to be remembered, the concern I have is that so much can change in 20 years. I don't foresee a CCA level team fading away but I doubt that 25 years ago anyone foresaw the economic collapse we are experiencing today. I think the most succinct way of saying what I am attempting to is, "Past success does not guarantee future success" If a team does well one year then there is no promise they will not fail the next. I am merely wondering if FIRST ought to put in place a system to make sure that if a team no longer exemplifies FIRST's goals they should be removed from the HoF. (I should hope it never happens, but I always work on the theory that if I assume the worst I am always pleasantly surprised)

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

As a student on the WildStang team when they had won the Chairman's Award in 2006, I understand the significance of such recognition. The new fire and determination that it can generate.Though I see where the belief that it is a good idea to allow HOF team's to resubmit since it allows generations that were not involved with the team when they had earned their recognition to prove that they are still deserving of the recognition that they received.

However I do not agree with the idea that a existing HOF team that already knows what the judges are looking for in each regional to be able to resubmit. I do not believe it is fair to other teams who are just as deserving of receiving recognition and an opportunity to earn their place among the other HOF teams.
Once your in the hall of fame, your always a part of its history. Is it fair for a team that has already been recognized to take away a chance for another team just for a reminder that they still deserve their HOF status? Each HOF team has proven already they are a role model for all teams, young and old, in FIRST. Why would they have to prove again that they are a role model? Wouldn't it make sense to recognize and add more teams to the HOF in order to create more role models for the hundreds of teams in first, rather than compete for more recognition that they had already received?

Why not create a sub-competition for HOF team's to compete among each other, in order to remind themselves of what it took to get there and prove they are still deserving of their place. All while not taking away the chance for a new team, who is just as deserving, to join the HOF.

Re: New Chairman's Award Eligibility
 

Exactly! This is what I said in my previous post.

Let's face it! Every human being has a basic need to be challenged! All of these new kids on the older CCA teams need a competitive challenge. Our brains love challenge and risk.
I just think they should be competing for something different than the RCA. If we devise a plan where CCA teams can compete for most of the regional awards (except for RCA and EI) and then compete Nationally each year for an HOF award then I think you have something substantial. It will give every kid on a CCA team something to shoot for all year long.