[Pat Fairbank]

I too voted "The awards weren't really random, but they didn't go to who I think deserved them."

However, I think the only random factors here are the physical limitations of the judging system. For one thing, not every judge gets to see every team, and therefore if one team wins an award over another team, it may very well be because one judge was better able to argue the case of one team over another nominated by a different judge, though neither had seen each other's teams.

For another thing, possibly due to insufficient time or quantities of judges, not all teams are always judged to the same extent - I noticed that several teams in my row at the Championship, including my own, were never approached directly by judges, instead just being observed from a distance. In the end, some teams had more of those coloured stickers on their pole than others.

That being said, I don't think these inconsistencies can be easily fixed or that there's enough reason to do so, given the physical limitations of the people who volunteer to be judges. The judges always do a great job considering the amount of pressure put on them, and there is no question that each team selected for an award deserves that award; it's just that they may not necessarily be the MOST deserving team.