2016 Chairman's Hall of Fame Predictions

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by lynca

This is a really interesting comment Gregor.
Who actually predicted 597 to win HoF last year ?

Is FIRST going in a completely different direction with the HoF selection process ?

That is an interesting point. However, I don't think FIRST is going to choose "under-the-radar" teams specifically since this will prevent the Chairman's "powerhouses" from ever entering the hall of fame. However, FIRST may look less and less at how well-known teams are.

Obviously, Chairman's is given to "model teams" for outreach, program growth and sustainability, etc, but I wonder if FIRST used to consider the strength of a team's robot performance as well. It's a little bit surprising that many, many hall of fame teams are also perrenial contenders for Einstein, considering the outreach portion of Chairman's seems to be the most important (not trying to knock powerhouse teams here, but if Chairman's and robots are truly independent then you would expect the hall of fame to contain a large range of robot-skilled teams).

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

Obviously, Chairman's is given to "model teams" for outreach, program growth and sustainability, etc, but I wonder if FIRST used to consider the strength of a team's robot performance as well. It's a little bit surprising that many, many hall of fame teams are also perrenial contenders for Einstein, considering the outreach portion of Chairman's seems to be the most important (not trying to knock powerhouse teams here, but if Chairman's and robots are truly independent then you would expect the hall of fame to contain a large range of robot-skilled teams).

It isn't surprising that strong robots are produced by the teams who have the strongest overall programs. I still think it should not be independently evaluated, especially because in my mind, a team that is the pinnacle of an FRC program to emulate should also consistently produce results on the field in addition to off the field.

I feel that the most well-rounded programs are the ones that should earn a spot in the HOF - which is typically the case.

[Red2486]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

That is an interesting point. However, I don't think FIRST is going to choose "under-the-radar" teams specifically since this will prevent the Chairman's "powerhouses" from ever entering the hall of fame. However, FIRST may look less and less at how well-known teams are.

Obviously, Chairman's is given to "model teams" for outreach, program growth and sustainability, etc, but I wonder if FIRST used to consider the strength of a team's robot performance as well. It's a little bit surprising that many, many hall of fame teams are also perrenial contenders for Einstein, considering the outreach portion of Chairman's seems to be the most important (not trying to knock powerhouse teams here, but if Chairman's and robots are truly independent then you would expect the hall of fame to contain a large range of robot-skilled teams).

I think that you are missing the connection here that does exist between the robot and Chairman's (though I don't think it is discussed in the judging room). Teams that are Champiomship level for the robot are excellent teams, and excellent teams tend to, in many cases, breed excellence is all areas. It has a lot to do with team culture. Additionally, the "better" a team is at Chairman's, the better their resources tend to be. If you are doing HOF level outreach, your chances of getting good funding, mentors, etc., go way up.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

Obviously, Chairman's is given to "model teams" for outreach, program growth and sustainability, etc, but I wonder if FIRST used to consider the strength of a team's robot performance as well. It's a little bit surprising that many, many hall of fame teams are also perrenial contenders for Einstein, considering the outreach portion of Chairman's seems to be the most important (not trying to knock powerhouse teams here, but if Chairman's and robots are truly independent then you would expect the hall of fame to contain a large range of robot-skilled teams).

Well, I'd imagine that part of being a model team is fielding a consistently competitive robot. Not because winning is important, but consistently high performing robots are a product of teams that have strong partnerships with their sponsors/mentors, a solid base of institutional FIRST design knowledge, effective implementation of the engineering design process, etc. I don't necessarily think that robot performance is explicitly factored into the decision, but the teams that are "doing it right" will probably end up with pretty good robots because of they way they are structured.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

Obviously, Chairman's is given to "model teams" for outreach, program growth and sustainability, etc, but I wonder if FIRST used to consider the strength of a team's robot performance as well. It's a little bit surprising that many, many hall of fame teams are also perrenial contenders for Einstein, considering the outreach portion of Chairman's seems to be the most important (not trying to knock powerhouse teams here, but if Chairman's and robots are truly independent then you would expect the hall of fame to contain a large range of robot-skilled teams).

Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog

Well, I'd imagine that part of being a model team is fielding a consistently competitive robot. Not because winning is important, but consistently high performing robots are a product of teams that have strong partnerships with their sponsors/mentors, a solid base of institutional FIRST design knowledge, effective implementation of the engineering design process, etc. I don't necessarily think that robot performance is explicitly factored into the decision, but the teams that are "doing it right" will probably end up with pretty good robots because of they way they are structured.

Looking at all of the Hall of Fame teams since 2000 the majority of them are well known for their performance on the field, but there are two counter-examples. Last year's winner 597 has never won a Regional or Champs Division in their history, and has a total of 4 robot based awards since their inception in 2001. They have been Regional Finalists 3 times but only once in this decade. 2008's Chairman's winning team 842 had never won an event in their history at the time they entered the HOF and had a total of 3 robot based awards at that time (4 if you include Division Finalist from Champs that same year, though I would think that would have occurred after judging for Chairman's was already concluded). There is also team 22 from 2001 that according to TBA had no robot awards prior to winning, but I don't know how accurate the history pages on FIRST and TBA are that far back for award listings.

Now I do think that having consistently below average performing robots precludes a team from winning Championship Chairman's, but once you are above a minimum-competitiveness threshold it looks like it is not a factor. I am not familiar with 597's robots but I did get to watch (and drive against) most of 842's robots during the years prior to their Chairman's win. They built sturdy robots focused around one aspect of the game and were often a playoff team, but were rarely an alliance captain and did not become a major contender for winning an event until their Chairman's season. Looking at TBA history for 597 they look similar in that they made quarters or semis at many events but rarely seeded high enough to captain their alliance. Based on these two teams, I would say any team has a reasonable shot at Championship Chairman's as long as they have robots that function reasonably well and sometimes make eliminations.

It will be interesting to see how 597's HOF status affects their competitiveness in the coming years. 842 really caught fire and has created some amazing machines since their Chairman's win. I'm not sure how much my students believe me when I tell them that they used to field robots not much different from the ones we have built recently.

[cadandcookies]

Posted my thoughts in this thread (just to round out the Chairman's previews for the year), but I'll post a slightly less verbose version here.

Basically, my top three are 987, 1311, and 3132. They're three extremely different programs that have all the trimmings of a "Chairman's team" in addition to some absolutely fantastic ways of making a measurable impact on their and others' communities.

Primary pieces that make each stick out:

1311: The most concrete and clear plan for integrating FIRST into an educational model I have ever seen, and demonstrable progress towards implementing their plan. Their essay and presentation focus on making it clear that implementing their "21st century education model" is one of the core and driving things about their team, and that it isn't a substitution for starting and helping other teams and traditional "Chairman's stuff." I'm going to try to make it over to the Dome (the team I'm mentoring is in Union Station) to pick someone on their teams' brains about sustainability because you all are clearly a team that has given it a ton of thought.

Next up was 987. I talked to you guys last year about the shop bot my team's high school got, and you guys were some of the most immediately friendly people I've ever met. Reading your essay this year cemented in my head that you guys are an incredible team with an incredible story. Building such a fantastic program that has impacted your community but also the new FIRST programs in China is incredible.

Last up was 3132. I am hard pressed to pick a favorite here, but if you twisted my arm a bit and bought me a shake at Bailey's Range, these guys are who I'd pick. Reading your essay and talking to you guys at Northern Lights, I feel like you guys are just an order of magnitude above anyone else when it comes to global impact. Building a sustainable program in our country and working to spread that model to other parts of the world is work that we all ultimately benefit from as FIRST becomes a truly international competition.

Whoever wins it this year is going to leave the biggest shoes yet to fill.