Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
That said, It's certainly open for debate at this point - has that benefit served its purpose enough that we can take it away? Have we created a sufficiently focused culture in the state around the Chairman's award that teams will continue to strive for it in the levels they did this past year, and not just make it "all about the robot"? Tough questions to answer.
|
I agree with Caleb, I think it's an odd incentive. It feels a bit like coercion to boot.
I do suspect that you'd see a drop in chairman's if you take the 10 points away. I know we were submitting before we knew about the 10 points, because our former coach was good that way. But I know I watch it much more carefully, and make sure of the deadline, because of those 10 points.
I'd vote to reduce it. Maybe 1 or 2 points. That could make it a nice tie breaker; if you had two teams that were otherwise pretty equal, give the nod to the one that submitted Chairman's. That feels more fair.
Or, and here's crazy talk: it'd be nice if you got a score on your chairman's submission. You could use that to gain points, and might be a nice way to encourage students to continue submitting. It's pretty hard to submit it year over year, knowing full well that some other amazing and well deserving team is going to win it. But if you had a score that was yours, that you could strive to improve year over year, I could see that being a valuable incentive.
Cheers,
Jeremy