Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley
I disagree with your argument. Why should when the support of this team was given, matter in the giving of an award? Teams are not judged on chairman's awards and etc from just the previous year.
The argument I was trying to make in my earlier post was that some teams take a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. They are a team, maybe just without a team number yet, or without a sponsor yet, but theyre still a team. If they are reaching out and supporting the community before they have even competed, that stuff should definitely count....regardless of when it was, summer, winter, months, or even years before they became a "team".
|
Brandon, you miss the point. FIRST defined what a rookie team is and what the award entails. FIRST is free to define it anyway they see fit. But as it is at this snapshot in time, I see a contradiction in the very definitions FIRST has given.
FIRST defines the rookie season time frame and I think they need to be as specific as they are with the time frame of the build season.
It is the time frame that seemed a bit unfair. There was no "level" playing field for a team that may have just managed to convince their school board to allow a team at the beginning of the school year and so missed the opportunity to work on the All Star Rookie award the previous summer. If they have no chance ... FIRST shouldn't allow them to believe they do.
I think 3091 might have won without the summer having been taken into consideration. They DO fantastic work and I have nothing but praise for that work. Perhaps the summer was NOT taken into consideration by the judges and Woodie misspoke. It wouldn't be the first time.
It doesn't really matter... the award has been given and that's that.
FIRST is a really great organization... but even FIRST needs to be watched and called to task occasionally for inconsistencies.