Does FIRST give out too many awards? (Opinion)

[Liz C]

I understand where you are going with the point that there may be too many; however, all of the awards whether they have a corporate name attached to them or not set aside teams who are clearly distinctive in whatever the award criteria describes. By changing the awards, FIRST may have realized the increasing accomplishments each team was achieving, and perhaps tweaked their awards accordingly. As long as teams still value the honor associated with the awards, there is not an excessive amount.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley

I agree. The "play of the day" and similar awards were the only ones to recognize good strategy, none of the current awards do that. Honestly, there are a lot of awards, but I have to agree with Andy, it's better to have more awards for many teams. If you only had a few awards for a few teams, all the other teams would have a hard time making a name for themselves. Plus, having an award under your belt helps teams get more support, which is vital. Kevin also makes a good point, more awards = more happy people per regional.

Actually that isnt totally true. The Xerox Creativity Award is given to a team that does something, ANYTHING creatively, and in the award speeches it even mentions strategies. Also, 1033 won a judges award in VCU for strategic innovation. Also, a pure strategy award would be arbitrary and would be totally impossible to come up with a true winner. Every robot is different and they all need specific strategies tailored to them, their alliance partners, and their opponents. There is no "standard" of which you could compare each strategy to. The only things you could possibly compare them to is the strategic opinions and papers that teams like 1033, 116, and 229 produce for themselves and others. And like I said, that is nothing more than their view.

Originally Posted by shyra1353

I think that there should be a limit for the amount of awards a team can win per regional. Yes, I understand that some teams deserve 5 or more of those awards at one competition...

And typically, teams dont win more than 3 awards per regional. And they are usually from totally seperate categories. It is very rare to see a team win two technical awards, or sportsmanship, spirit, and/or imagery, or chairmans and EI. They will typically only take one of each "category" or awards, or broad area of different types of awards. And usually they wont take one from all of them. You might see a team win AVA (animation), Xerox (technical), and a Woody Flowers Award, but you probably wouldnt see a team win Industrial Design, Innovation in Controal, and Driving Tomorrow's Technology. It wouldnt be fair only to recognize a teams most impressive feats if they have the best in each section of the competition. If the team is that good at website, technical robots, on the field competition, sportsmanship, and inspiration, so be it.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I agree with Ed.

Arguing about the number of awards?! I mean c'mon people, don't we have something better to fill our time with?

There are valid points on both side. You can agree with Mr. Lall, and believe we are all just pawns in FIRST's quest for global domination. Or rather, you can defend FIRST until your final breath is gone.

So I guess my outlook on this situation would be one of total disregard. All I know is I have fun building a robot, and I have fun competing with it. If I get an award, I'm happy. If I don't, then too bad. Either way, I'm coming back next year.

[J Flex 188]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I agree with Ed.


There are valid points on both side. You can agree with Mr. Lall, and believe we are all just pawns in FIRST's quest for global domination. Or rather, you can defend FIRST until your final breath is gone.

Well, I call editorializing on that statement, the value of FIRST is still obvious in Jon's post, albeit with a tone that isn't usually seen on these forums.

Other than that, I am inclined to disagree with my teammate at this point, solely because of the fact that recognition usually breeds continued success, or is at least a motivating factor for some schools. I'll take the example of Team 1558, Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute Robotics (ACCI-DENT!). They essentially had a team of 5 seniors, and their robot came into our shop about two weeks before ship date as nothing more than a kit frame and wheels. They went on to win Highest Rookie Seed at Waterloo. Personally I had always considered there to be a plethora of Rookie awards (Seed, Inspiration, All-Star) but their win prompted more recruitment in their school, where before they had trouble getting interest (the biggest school in Scarborough with 2200+people). At the same time, there were the GM triplets, each of which, no question, had contributed something worthwhile. Two of them won awards, which in my opinion was fair. Giving one team an award over another one of those teams in the triplet set would have been accepted as well, but it served to bring attention to the fact that despite the existence of collaboration, each team is unique and offers different things to FIRST. This point, I feel, illustrates why FIRST should keep the same number of awards they have now. Not only will you have more growth, you will have a slightly diluted field if collaboration continues. But it is important to keep each element separate within that collaborative.

[RyanMcE]

Like others, I see both sides of this one.

In 2001, my team's rookie year, we were thrilled to win the Rookie All-Star award at the Silicon Valley Regional. Then we found out the next day that another team had also won a rookie all-star award at the same regional. And yes, that did cheapen the experience, a little bit. But looking back at it I think overall, it was better for both of our teams to win the award, even it it was the same award twice.

However, there is definitely a balance, and I do feel that FIRST kind of teeters on the edge of too many. Looking at a regional list of awards at a smaller regional, anyone who doesn't understand how much work goes into the competition would probably think, "wow, its really easy to win an award." And of course if every team were to win something, winning something wouldn't mean anything. On the other hand, if only a handful of teams win anything, team attrition will likely go up. Winning awards - or even coming close, or knowing another team that does - definitely helps keep kids involved, which is what its all about. And certainly most teams deserve the awards they get for all the work they put in.

I'm thankful for this thread, and for the responses so far - I started out saying "yeah, for sure there sure are too many awards" - but now I'm not so sure. Maybe the best thing to do would be to change the number of awards based on the size of the regional - that way, it is equally "hard" to win an award at any given regional, and an optimal balance between meaningfulness of awards and number of awards can be more easily reached.

[Dave Campbell]

I have been waiting for this thread.
R in FIRST is RECOGNITION. In my opinion recognition means awards. Yes, here are other types of recognition, some intrinsic (Jonathan you understand this type, I can tell) but most are external given by peers, judges, supervisors, teachers, etc.

I think we need more awards - specifically an award that celebrates the team that effectively and creatively uses the most parts from the KOP. I'm sure all of the suppliers and sponsors would appreciate their donations being put to use and recognition of the fantastic materials they supply. This might help recognize those "have not" teams who are lean on budget but strong on ingenious solutions with what they are given. NASA could even call it the "Apollo 13" award. It is reminiscent of the days of old when we were only allowed the KOP, +the SPARK credit and limited quantities of acceptable hardware.

In my opinion, FIRST is not devaluing any award, simply recognizing and celebrating all of the things that make me so proud to be a FIRST participant.

[the_short1]

whats the requirements for a participation medal? our team got a box (of medals) given to us at GLR after winning rookie allstar,higehst rookie seed, website excellence. but since we lost in the semi finals.. we didnlt place


i think they were good, as it made all the students really happy to have something to take home, because a trophy stays at school.. so i support participation medals, .. the trophys are the REAL prize tho. and i think their is a good number..

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

I have been waiting for this thread.
R in FIRST is RECOGNITION. ... NASA could even call it the "Apollo 13" award. It is reminiscent of the days of old when we were only allowed the KOP, +the SPARK credit and limited quantities of acceptable hardware.

This is a great idea, Dave.

(pssst... The rest of you need to listen to Dave. He has been doing this FIRST thing for as long as some of you have been alive. His teams have won countless awards, including National Champions and National Chairmans, I believe.)

There are some long-time FIRSTers who yearn for the ol' "Appollo 13" days of building a FIRST robot (cough, cough, Lavery, cough, cough). This idea not only recognizes teams with less resources than other teams, but it also throws a bone to these old FIRSTers.

Andy B.

[jonathan lall]

It would seem some of the people here are arguing the other side without properly reading what I had to say. The other side of course, is completely valid and legitimate when founded, but it is not my personal belief that awards be used in the manner they are being used. I should point out it is also not my belief, like some have suggested, that we are all just pawns in FIRST's quest for global domination. However, instead of defending every decision someone in FIRST makes till my last breath, I choose to think for myself.

If FIRST's Championship is the "Superbowl of Smarts," why is the ratio of teams to awards so high? I realize that teams win multiple awards, and despite what some people have suggested, that was the first thing I pointed out when I presented that figure. But for every award in FIRST, there are only 1.5 teams. In the real NFL, there are 32 teams. I guarantee you there aren't 22 team awards. Heck, those poor souls don't even get participation medals for their efforts.

"Well," you might suggest. "They're not babies." Neither are FIRST kids.

For those of you who have trouble with the concept I'm trying to present, it is my belief that FIRST is trying to do too much with its awards -- that is, trying to artificially further its societal goals with awards, rather than reward excellence in its competition. FIRST is of course a grand social experiment in American culture that just uses a (ridiculously fun and enriching) robotics competition as a vehicle to achieve those goals. That's why Dean Kamen says we are here to "change the culture;" he's not just saying that because it sounds cool, he's saying that because the by-product of participating in the FRC is a more well-rounded and enlightened individual. If you think my position is that "FIRST is about robots," you need to go back and read through what I've said. It's simply my position that awards not be used explicitly to that end (the societal goals). For example, we don't need a Team Spirit Award to ensure teams come out with enthusiam about FIRST. If we do, it means that that enthusiasm is not genuine. And it is this, and a less profound impact on award winners, that we risk by artificially trying to further FIRST's goals.

[Conor Ryan]

I have many different medals an trophies in my room, some of them I out right won in competition, but some of them are just participation medals. while I do value the ones i won more than the participation medals, I still look back on my old participation medals as a reminder of what i did and all the work I did. If nothing else its always fun to go back a few years after you won something and then look at it and remember all the exciting things you did back in the day. But the people that got all the "extra" awards diffenetly earned them and such, and its always to be congradulated on an award.

Also consider the fact that in each award, you are going up against the ENTIRE field, not just the teams that don't already have an award.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by the_short1

whats the requirements for a participation medal? our team got a box (of medals) given to us at GLR after winning rookie allstar,higehst rookie seed, website excellence. but since we lost in the semi finals.. we didnlt place


i think they were good, as it made all the students really happy to have something to take home, because a trophy stays at school.. so i support participation medals, .. the trophys are the REAL prize tho. and i think their is a good number..

All teams get the bronze participation medals. If you win the on-field competition you get a silver, and if you win chairmans, a gold.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

In the real NFL, there are 32 teams. I guarantee you there aren't 22 team awards. Heck, those poor souls don't even get participation medals for their efforts.

"Well," you might suggest. "They're not babies." Neither are FIRST kids.

Actually, I'd be more likely to suggest that "They don't need a participation medal, their six to eight figure salary seems to be a more than adequate substitute."

Personally, I've never kept any of my participation medals, but that's my prerogative. Other people like having a tangible reward. I don't think it this is a bad thing. If it were up to me, I'd stop handing out bronze medals, and instead recognize participating High School students with service pins, much like how FIRST mentors and volunteers are recognized. I think it'd be really cool for all those kids who stayed in FIRST for their entire High School career to get a "4 Year Student Pin". Seems like something people would wear with pride. Just like FIRST volunteer service pins, you would have one for a single year of membership as well. Also, by using the pins instead of medals, you've created a clear line between participation and winning, without demeaning either.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

If FIRST's Championship is the "Superbowl of Smarts," why is the ratio of teams to awards so high?

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

In the real NFL, there are 32 teams. I guarantee you there aren't 22 team awards. Heck, those poor souls don't even get participation medals for their efforts.

In the real NFL, 2 teams get awards, the winner and loser of the superbowl. That's 6% of the 32 teams. 16% of teams that make the playoffs (12) get an award.

At the FIRST championship, a maximum of 52 teams get awards, and there are 988 teams total. That's 5%. 15% of teams that make the championship (340) get an award.

Also, 37% of NFL teams make the playoffs and 34% of FIRST teams make the championships.



Perhaps your time would be better spent creating more teams near Waterloo, and convincing other teams to come to Waterloo then complaining about the worthiness of Waterloo's award winners.

[Steve W]

What makes FIRST unique in todays society? Is it the robots? Nope there are lots of robotic competitions. Is it money? Nope we don't get any. Why then is FIRST so successful?

First of all those bronze medals are not for performance but are mementos for what has been accomplished. Visual reminders of what has happened and encouragement for what might happen. It is a reminder to each person that they participated in the greatest and largest (I believe) robotics competition. It is a constant reminder of what they can do when they put their mind to something. Are they winners? Depends on your interpretation. If you believe that a winner is the only one that is at the top after competition ends, then no. However if you believe that a winner is one who tries and succeeds in meeting their goals or one who expands their horizons to become a better person, then yes they7 are winners.

Motivation and rewards are the best way to accomplish goals. This is proven over and over in "The Real World". Salesmen get bonuses, athletes get bonuses, executive also get bonuses. If you go 5 years absent free people get awards, 10 years with a company gets you an award, the list goes on and on. FIRST is trying to reward those who make the effort. Is everything fair and running perfectly? probably not but those things can be fixed. They are still attempting to encourage and promote.

One thing that I have noticed when standing in the line to congratulate the winners is that there are very few people that are not grinning from ear to ear. If they thought that it was such a cheap thrill or meaningless I don't think that this reaction would be seen. People love to be recognized for their efforts. Even those that say they don't, still get a warm and fuzzy when they are thanked or recognized. The awards are there to encourage and promote different areas and companies. Oh yes, companies. These companies give a lot and should get some recognition in return. I have no problem with that. Money doesn't grow on trees yet so we need to harvest it were we can. The water that makes the money grow is recognition.

I love to see teams win awards. I love to see the excitement that it brings to a team and individuals. As far as I am concerned we should keep it up or the sake of the future.

[Philip W.]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Perhaps your time would be better spent creating more teams near Waterloo, and convincing other teams to come to Waterloo then complaining about the worthiness of Waterloo's award winners.

I believe Jonathan was merely using the Waterloo regional as an example to express his ideas and opinions.

Anyway, this is what I have to say.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

For those of you who have trouble with the concept I'm trying to present, it is my belief that FIRST is trying to do too much with its awards -- that is, trying to artificially further its societal goals with awards, rather than reward excellence in its competition...For example, we don't need a Team Spirit Award to ensure teams come out with enthusiam about FIRST. If we do, it means that that enthusiasm is not genuine. And it is this, and a less profound impact on award winners, that we risk by artificially trying to further FIRST's goals.

I agree with Jon that the goals of some of the FIRST awards are more to promote rather than award. The best example I can see is the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Award for Entrepreneurship, an award that just doesn't seem to fit the robotics setting. I'm sure FIRST had no real intentions of awarding entrepreneurship in its early years. By creating this award, most likely under the suggestion of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers after their large sponsorship, teams driven by recognition will work hard and contend for the award and thus satisfying the goal of the award, promoting aspects of entrepreneurship. It may be said that awards like this one create the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to acheive the award(such as animation and the Autodesk Imagery Award), but its ultimate goal would be to promote. Promotion of many "products" such as a future career in business and animation, or the use of a company's software.

These awards may still incidentally be won by well-deserving teams. Teams most likely do not need an award to give them team spirit and have their members dancing on the field to "YMCA", but there are those teams that go the extra mile to compete for the Team Spirit Award.

But, are all of these awards really needed? I would say definitely. Without some of them, the domains they represent would never be explored. Call me materialistic if you will, but the goals of these awards work for me and do make me want to toil and achieve them. No matter what the value of the award is, as long as it's not for participation, last place, or second to last, I probably want it if it was within my reach. If I don't get it? I'll have self-gratification replace its reserved spot on the mantleshelf and it'll suffice for me.