Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto
It doesn't sit well with me either, but it is the reality of the "Chairman's game".
We're relatively new to Chairman's (only submitted twice). My advice to our Chairman's team (students and mentors) is be proud of our actual accomplishments and "stick to our guns".
You, no doubt, also have much to be proud of with your team's accomplishments.
Although it is hard, and often doesn't feel fair, I like Chairman's to focus more positive energy internally to our team, rather than bring in potentially negative energy from outside the team.
That is our way to cope, YMMV.
-Mike
|
You submit for Chairman's enough and follow the sport enough to notice that awarding dubious submissions degrades the quality and integrity of the award, indirectly allowing for more latitude that can lead to more dubious submissions being awarded that create a negative feedback loop that has brought us to a thread like this... a thread that is in no way surprising to me and elicits no real reaction from me. You put your ear to the walls enough to hear some pretty absurd stuff re: chairman's award. You eventually become deaf to it, or at least tone it out in the way most people tone out a screaming infant in a theme park (I am not one of those people in both the literal and metaphorical uses of this phrase).