On the subject of rewarding participation, what Karthik suggested about a pin denoting some level of participation in FIRST through high school is far more sound and profound than cheapening the meaning of medals by making thousands of them; again, I always associate medals with distinction (perhaps that's the fault of athletic competitions like the Olympics, and military awards), and I guess clichéd phrases about how a participation medal somehow does just that, simply don't do it for me.
A four-year service pin on the other hand, is an acheivement, and it says something about you. It also provides students with something to strive for. A participation medal cannot do anything of the sort.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Ross
In the real NFL, 2 teams get awards, the winner and loser of the superbowl. That's 6% of the 32 teams. 16% of teams that make the playoffs (12) get an award.
|
Correct. And those teams reach the playoffs based on a tiered system of how long they were in the league or the awards they got at NFL regionals.
Oh no, wait a second. The NFL doesn't have regionals and NFL teams reach the playoffs based on their standings. This means the NFL doesn't have to deal with the prospect of cutting more trophies than there are teams.
Therefore, your first figure there, 6% of the 32 teams, is the only one even close to analogous to what we're talking about. If you want an analogy about the motivation behind FIRST's awards and the NFL, here's one: The NFL's main concern is to maximize profit. If the NFL did what FIRST is (I hold) doing with its awards, it would reward teams for attendance in their stadiums and highest revenue from ticket sales.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Philip W.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Ross
Perhaps your time would be better spent creating more teams near Waterloo, and convincing other teams to come to Waterloo then complaining about the worthiness of Waterloo's award winners.
|
I believe Jonathan was merely using the Waterloo regional as an example to express his ideas and opinions. |
I congratulate Philip on actually reading what I had to say, rather than reading
into what I said. I specifically used Waterloo as an example, because it was a regional of 24 teams (which I said). Don't get it twisted, what Joe said suggests my post had an accusatory tone toward Waterloo Award winners, which is patently false. But it does bring into question whether the number of awards per regional is good, considering there will
always be small regionals.