[FRC Blog] More ‘Something New’ at the FIRST Championship

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Championship EI is judged the same way as regional EI, by the pit judges. All teams in the division would be eligible. No inside info, just my best informed guess based on past history

Also there is a difference between the two awards. EI puts a lot more emphasis on STEM Outreach specifically, while Chairman's tends to look at both Outreach, Community Service and helping FIRST grow. So unless you restructure the awards across the board, you couldn't use EI winners as feeders for CCA.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Woetie

Oke, well that seems fair. Thanks for explaining

In fact, there's at least one team who's actually taken home Worlds EI without a Regional one. Hawaiian Kids? I think.

FIRST: Awesome changes. Next request for awards - what is EI?

[Invictus3593]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

It will be like having 4 events in one building, should be different, but I think it will actually be a good different...

4 FRC events, then you've got FTC and FLL in the same arena as well XD

[crake]

Originally Posted by Invictus3593

4 FRC events, then you've got FTC and FLL in the same arena as well XD

FTC is a effectively a double event with 128 teams in 2 divisions, FLL is a "very large" event with 80 teams, and don't forget Jr. FLL with another 40 teams. So you have 8 events going on!

[Mike Schreiber]

Edit: I totally missed Brandon's Post (not sure how) I completely agree with you and had the same thoughts haha

Am I the only one who is a little disappointed in this change? I understand the reason this was done, and I know it's not going to change back.

With certain awards I actually like this change. I like having 4 EI winners, partially because it is already basically (IMO) used as a runner up for Chairman's. Having 4 RAS winners is very encouraging for rookie teams.

I know FIRST likes to spread the wealth and the more people that go home with hardware the greater the feeling of accomplishment everyone has collectively.

My main point is that it is nice to say that "We were the best in the division." But that is so much less awesome to say than, "We were the best in the world." One of the highlights of my FIRST career was winning Motorola Quality in 2008 at the championship. I don't think sharing that feeling of accomplishment with 3 other teams would have had the same effect.

How will we ever know if we're better than the Cheesy Poofs? Or Simbotics? (Go ahead, tell me that's not what FIRST is about)

I also liked robot awards being on Einstein because you got to see robots you never played against (but were still competing with for awards). Now unless you are up for Chairman's or you make it to Einstein you are really only in a quarter of World Championship.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

I like having 4 EI winners, partially because it is already basically (IMO) used as a runner up for Chairman's.

Enjoyed reading the rest of your thoughts, but EVERY TIME this comes up I feel compelled to pop in to the discussion.

Nope. EI is NOT, and should not be, a runner-up for the Chairman's Award. Separate judges, no presentation (at regional events/CMP... IMO the district system of 'presenting' for EI is kind of odd, and makes it too easy to think that it's runner-up to CA). Similar objectives? Yes, but not the same. Chairman's is the gold standard for changing culture, where EI might be a good sign that you're moving in the right direction.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

Edit: I totally missed Brandon's Post (not sure how) I completely agree with you and had the same thoughts haha

Am I the only one who is a little disappointed in this change? I understand the reason this was done, and I know it's not going to change back.

With certain awards I actually like this change. I like having 4 EI winners, partially because it is already basically (IMO) used as a runner up for Chairman's. Having 4 RAS winners is very encouraging for rookie teams.

I know FIRST likes to spread the wealth and the more people that go home with hardware the greater the feeling of accomplishment everyone has collectively.

My main point is that it is nice to say that "We were the best in the division." But that is so much less awesome to say than, "We were the best in the world." One of the highlights of my FIRST career was winning Motorola Quality in 2008 at the championship. I don't think sharing that feeling of accomplishment with 3 other teams would have had the same effect.

How will we ever know if we're better than the Cheesy Poofs? Or Simbotics? (Go ahead, tell me that's not what FIRST is about)

I also liked robot awards being on Einstein because you got to see robots you never played against (but were still competing with for awards). Now unless you are up for Chairman's or you make it to Einstein you are really only in a quarter of World Championship.

While I understand what you are getting at I can tell you that one of the hardest parts about judging at regionals is knowing that there are deserving teams that you CANNOT give an award for. We agonize over that. And the events I've done have been small (most of them sub 40 teams) and we still agonize over teams that deserve to have their efforts and innovations recognized but we can't. I can scarcely imagine what it would be like if for every one team we couldn't recognize we had 10... How do I decide which is more deserving of a quality award; a team that designed their transmissions to be easily swappable, a team that did analysis on every part of their machine and optimized each structure according to estimated loads, or a team that has a process built into their workflow with several QA checks in place? Who gets the award? It freaking sucks to decide that one.

Instead of viewing it was sharing the honor view it as FIRST and the judges recognizing more of our peers.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Enjoyed reading the rest of your thoughts, but EVERY TIME this comes up I feel compelled to pop in to the discussion.

Nope. EI is NOT, and should not be, a runner-up for the Chairman's Award. Separate judges, no presentation (at regional events/CMP... IMO the district system of 'presenting' for EI is kind of odd, and makes it too easy to think that it's runner-up to CA). Similar objectives? Yes, but not the same. Chairman's is the gold standard for changing culture, where EI might be a good sign that you're moving in the right direction.

Well for what it's worth I am from a district system (IMO is kinda the key here) where we DO present for the award like Chairman's.

I also tend to see a pattern. In the time I have been involved in FIRST 1/2 of the Championship EI winners have gone on to win Chairman's in the next few years.

2005 - 842 wins EI, 2008 - they win CA
2006 - 365 wins EI, 2007 - they win CA
2008 - 359 wins EI, 2011 - they win CA
2009 - 341 wins EI, 2010 - they win CA

One is about inspiring others, the other is about being a role model team, but the teams that inspire their community on level impactful enough to win EI at champs ARE role model teams.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

Well for what it's worth I am from a district system (IMO is kinda the key here) where we DO present for the award like Chairman's.

I also tend to see a pattern. In the time I have been involved in FIRST 1/2 of the Championship EI winners have gone on to win Chairman's in the next few years.

2005 - 842 wins EI, 2008 - they win CA
2006 - 365 wins EI, 2007 - they win CA
2008 - 359 wins EI, 2011 - they win CA
2009 - 341 wins EI, 2010 - they win CA

One is about inspiring others, the other is about being a role model team, but the teams that inspire their community on level impactful enough to win EI at champs ARE role model teams.

I'm from a district system too... Still don't like the presenting-for-EI thing. To me, it perpetuates the idea that it's a runner-up to CA, which is just untrue. In most cases across the community, teams still don't present for EI. Districts are the exception there.

That's an interesting pattern - didn't realize that. However, I still think it's pretty great to have four potential future-hall-of-famers than just one each year. I think I like the idea of sharing the honors across the divisions, but we'll see how it pans out when we all get there, I suppose.

[AlexD744]

I think "presenting" might be the wrong word. At least at the NEDCMP, the judges did not have the teams present, but instead had an interview similar to to a pit interview, but just in a separate room, so that the teams not competing with the robots wouldn't have a different experience than those who were. The judging for EI can be done by the same judges or by separate judges than those who do Chairman's. This might help differentiate it from being a "second place Chairman's." (although, I've already always seen it as a very similar award to Chairman's)

I'm curious, are other District Championships having the EI teams do a formal presentation? Or doing the same as in NE?

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I'm from a district system too... Still don't like the presenting-for-EI thing. To me, it perpetuates the idea that it's a runner-up to CA, which is just untrue. In most cases across the community, teams still don't present for EI. Districts are the exception there.

That's an interesting pattern - didn't realize that. However, I still think it's pretty great to have four potential future-hall-of-famers than just one each year. I think I like the idea of sharing the honors across the divisions, but we'll see how it pans out when we all get there, I suppose.

The pattern is interesting but just to clarify..... In the year that we won the Champs EI (2009) we were not a Chairmans candidate at Champs. We failed to win the Regional CA in Philly that year. So winning EI at Champs in 2009 was one of our proudest moments and it did not feel like we were a runner-up to anything. Also I think I will like the new awards system. It may need some future tweaks but I think its heading in the right direction.