Abolishing of awards?

[Rev. Lovejoy]

What did everyone think of the lack of certain awards

Most notably:

Best Offensive Round
Highest Seed After Qualifying
Rookie Allstar (based on highest ranking)
Highest Ranking Lightweight

[Patrick Wang]

I think first made a good move concentrating more on team values and such rather than these competition aspects. to me, the above listed are a little more frivoulous and based on luck rather than strong teamwork and gracious professionalism.

[Ashley Weed]

no more #1 Seed Award?

[Rev. Lovejoy]

No, which surprised us, it was mentioned in another award, but no, no first seed award.


I do think these awards deserved to stay though, especially highest scoring round, especially since I think it has less to do with luck than it does with skill.

[Ken Leung]

Even though there are no the above awards, I am still sending FIRST the follow awards from the Sacramento Regional, just because the Scoring software asked me to:

#1 seed
Highest seed rookie

There are 2 rookie all star already, and that's enough for a regional. The Highest seed rookie is exactly the "rookie all star base on ranking".

Even though I've been in a competition with the best offensive round award and lightest robot award, I just don't think they are as practical anymore. The best offensive round award was done by votes from teams, and not every one on the team pay that close attentions to the matches. And for the lightest robot award... most teams are very likely to get as much weight as possible on their robot so they will be more competitive, so it wouldn't be so wise reducing weight on the robot just to get this award.

[Gope]

I think that FIRST gives out too many awards, I think it was a good think that some awards are being abolished.

I personaly feel that there should only be 3 awards

Chairmans
Finals Champions
Rookie All stars

I feel that by awarding only the "excelent" it will inspire teams to achieve these goals, and will give more prestiege to their winners.

[ahecht]

I was a bit upset that the "Incredible Play" award was missing, because I really wanted to nominate Buzz for single handedly defending their human player stack against two other robots for most of a match.

[JVN]

Originally posted by ahecht
I was a bit upset that the "Incredible Play" award was missing, because I really wanted to nominate Buzz for single handedly defending their human player stack against two other robots for most of a match.

How about the match where PARTS went up in smoke, and CHAOS had to win a 2v1?

That was a beautiful match. Great driving and coaching on behalf of 131. If anyone wants to see what great driving is, they should watch that match.

[Rev. Lovejoy]

Originally posted by ahecht
I was a bit upset that the "Incredible Play" award was missing, because I really wanted to nominate Buzz for single handedly defending their human player stack against two other robots for most of a match.

I would give it to the robot that drove up ON another robot while they were on the ramp, and stayed there, I thought that was pretty cool.

[gsensel]

The number one seed award is needed because in some ways that is better than winning. This is true because it says that hey we can win with whomever we are "randomly" paired with.

[SkitzoSmurf]

they should bring back #1 seed, that is important. that means you worked well and hard to get to the top. I think they should have some award that recognizes simple effective design. Like a K.I.S.S. award. My team does it every year. Simple, yet affective.

[Caleb Fulton]

We got 45's play of the day award for that one, which was good enough!!!

[WernerNYK]

Nothing like shifting back the center of gravity so we tilt back when we drive forward, just long enough to spin our front wheels on our opponent, with just one second left and having the buzzer sound just as the robot comes to a full stop on the ramp

[soap108]

Originally posted by Ken L

Even though I've been in a competition with the best offensive round award and lightest robot award, I just don't think they are as practical anymore. The best offensive round award was done by votes from teams, and not every one on the team pay that close attentions to the matches. And for the lightest robot award... most teams are very likely to get as much weight as possible on their robot so they will be more competitive, so it wouldn't be so wise reducing weight on the robot just to get this award.

I miss the "Featherweight in the Finals" award since our team won it twice- at the Motorola Midwest Regional in 1997 (~108 lbs) and 1999 (~111 lbs).

...but besides that...

I think this was a great engineering award. In the real world, especially here in cel-phone land, size and weight are key differentiators in the market place. Ever wanted to go back to the brick cel-phone? Why not? Too bulky?

I'd like to see a new award, Fewest Amps Required or Energy Conservation Award. Basically somehow develop additional electronics to measure power consumption during your two minute match. Take an average or something after 5-10 matches and compare vs. other teams.

Perfecting this would be tough....what if a robot sits still for 2:00 each match- he wins the award.... There'd have to be more criteria, but hopefully you see the point.

The engineering awards should map to something comparable in the real-world. I think most do, but perhaps we can add more? Not that the judges don't have enough to do....

Remember they did add awards Website (team voted), and Regional Autodesk Visualization....

Also Engineering Inspiration is fairly new.

KA-108
www.soap108.com/2003/events/va/awards.cfm
www.soap108.com/2003/events/oh/awards.cfm