Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoucher
In addition to this, you need to know that the judges take the process very seriously. There are many checks and balances in place to ensure a fair event.
|
I know the judges take the process very seriously. We don't know what happened the judges room. We assume that they compared notes and made the best decision based off of the information they received at the event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffB
This is a fair question to ask only if everything is the same from event to event.
Bayou: http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016lake
Lone Star: http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2016txho
We can look at a variety of stats here to see the two events were a bit different. The highest OPR at Bayou would have been valid only for 4th at Lone Star. 233, one of the winning teams at Bayou, increased their OPR by 10% between these two events. This helps to show the teams you're competing against have also improved during this time. There were 10 more teams at Lone Star. They were different. Even "consistent" judging will appear different when the thing being judged changes. What you're asking for isn't consistent. "We received X award at this event and didn't win at the following event" doesn't show a lack of consistency. You need to step back and evaluate the rest of the events to see if the decisions were really all that different. |
As Phil stated above, we knew the competition was going to be a lot tougher at Lone Star. We researched the rookies we were competing against with and seeing how we were the only rookie that had been to a previous competition that had won Rookie Inspiration, we thought we had a real shot to win RAS. We stepped up our game, both RAS-wise and robot-wise, and feel we made some really good improvements from Bayou to Lone Star. Once again, nothing against 6133 and 5892, they definitely deserved the awards they won and we congratulate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sperkowsky
Especially with a rookie award how hard is it to go down a list of all of the rookies in attendance. There's never too many of them. That way stuff like "you weren't mentioned" doesn't happen.
One thing I recommend is to specifically try not to be forgotten. Say something that's wows them and leaves them thinking of you.
|
I knew we needed more LEDs.
I agree and with there being 11 rookies at Lone Star, we accounted for that and thought we would be able to stand out. The rookies in attendance also did their best to stand out too so I'm sure the judges didn't have an easy job either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelah
That is one of four requirements:
■ This team seems like a “Chairman’s Award team in the making.” (Community activities,
leadership, vision, spirit, etc.)
■ The team is a true partnership between school or organization and sponsors.
■ The team understands what FIRST is really trying to accomplish – realizes that technical stuff is
fun, challenging, and offers a future.
■ This team has built a robot appropriate to the game’s challenges.
What you are describing, to me, is the Highest Rookie Seed Award, which I assume they won if they were the highest ranked rookie. The Rookie All-Star, from my understanding (and the Awards section of the manual), is more of a rookie version of the Chairman's Award.
(I wasn't at the event, obviously; I just looked this up to find out whether Rookie All-Star was that different at a regional than at our district events.)
|
Highest Rookie Seed - 6133 (#8)
Rookie Inspiration - 6133
Rookie All-Star - 5892