Two Chairmans Winners Per Event

[Koko Ed]

There can be only one....

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There can be only one....

I completely agree!

Please excuse me while I get my soap box off of a root of this beautiful oak tree; ah, that's better.

I believe that we should abolish the Regional Chairman's Award BUT each regional should send as many teams to the Championships based on the entries for the most prestigious award in FIRST award (i.e. Chairman's Award) as we do for the it's not all about the robot award (i.e. Regional Winners). We currently advance 3 for the robot and 1 for the Chairman's to the Championships ... how about at least 3 & 3; on the other hand, maybe if only one advances for the Chairman's then maybe only one should advance for the robot ... how about only the alliance captain of the regional winning alliance advances ... ohhhhhhhhhhh, this would change the thought process behind high seeded teams hooking up together

I like the idea of 105 teams walking around the country telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, "We are one of 3 teams selected at our regional to compete for the Chairman's Award in Atlanta, the most prestigious award in FIRST." rather than 35 teams telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, "We won the regional Chairman's Award; the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award in FIRST." In summary, there should only be one Chairman's Award that the Chairman of FIRST presents at the Championships and the rest should be called something else.

I realize that my complaining can be seen as purely semantics but my real goal is not semantical at all: To have Chairman's as competitive and celebrated as the robot competition. Ultimately, Chairman's efforts from teams are more responsible for supplying America's workforce with engineers and scientists than building the robot. In the year 2020, hopefully you'll hear comments like, "What do you mean your team does not compete for Chairman's; EVERYONE competes for Chairman's!" Then, in 2050, you'll hear comments akin to, "Oh, we do not have a robot, we are just here competing for the Chairman's Award."

Ed, I'm sorry that I took liberty with your "There can be only one ..." statement but it was a great step onto my soap box. Thank you!

Back to the Nutt Ranch,
Lucien

p.s. I still haven't found any 1/4-20 nuts on the ranch ... just a bunch of white jackets with the arms sewn to the pockets. I did have pecan pie for lunch though; maybe it is that kind of nut farm .

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There can be only one....

This is the truth. The Chairman's Award is the most prestigious award FIRST gives out. There should be only one team that receives this award at the Regional level; for if FIRST begins awarding multiple Chairman's Awards, it will lose its prestigious meaning. The Chairman's Award is seen as that thing that's almost unattainable. It's the pinnacle, the best of the best. If you win it, you're on top of the world, and if you don't, you keep trying because to receive it means you're among the best of the best.

To somehow change that in any way would be doing an injustice to the award. As Ed said, there can be only one.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There can be only one....

I couldn't have said it any better myself. There is, and should only be one Chairman's Award.

There is only one Chairman's Award for a reason, and that is to show to the rest of the community who the movers and shakers teams are for their support of FIRST and its values. Although I support the idea of letting the runner-up teams know that they were close to winning, I do not support the idea of creating an official "Chairman's Honorable Mention" award. If all we keep doing is create ten billion awards for every last little thing in FIRST, then all we are doing is diluting the meaning of each award.

As it is now, only a few teams will win awards each year. Without trying to sound elitist, that is the way it should stay. For when there are a lot of teams all trying to win a small number of awards, then every team will try nth harder just to put themselves ahead of the rest. By limiting the number of awards, you are increasing the effort needed to win. Those few teams who do win will most definitely deserve that award.

Victory and success will not find you - you must find them.


P.S. This post may be a little biased, because three long years of hard work has finally paid off for me. I won a $60,000 scholarship today.
But at the same time this does not mean that I am done. I still have a year of high school left and a full hand of cards to play.

[Kyle Love]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There can be only one....

I agree. If theres more then one, it takes away some of the prestige...

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Kyle Love

I agree. If theres more then one, it takes away some of the prestige...

I have to say, mostly because of logistics, I agree with the only one statement... Plus its a very big award, and in a sense the limelight belongs to the best of the best... but nowadays, the choices arent easy, there are LOTS of good teams, lots of deserving teams...

So I have a thought (seeing the other side of the coin) about the prestige... for those of you that remember, there used to only be one "national champion". FIRST decided teamwork was a better way to go, and why not have more "winners"... so why should this be so different with Chairmans? What if there are two teams that we should be emulating at the regionals? or two teams in the world that are great rolemodels? or even stranger, what if two teams wanted to work together for Chairmans?

I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". Maybe with the size of FIRST, with the number of phenomenal teams out there, this needs to be rethought?

I dunno... just trying to see the opposing viewpoint.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

I have to say, mostly because of logistics, I agree with the only one statement... Plus its a very big award, and in a sense the limelight belongs to the best of the best... but nowadays, the choices arent easy, there are LOTS of good teams, lots of deserving teams...

So I have a thought (seeing the other side of the coin) about the prestige... for those of you that remember, there used to only be one "national champion". FIRST decided teamwork was a better way to go, and why not have more "winners"... so why should this be so different with Chairmans? What if there are two teams that we should be emulating at the regionals? or two teams in the world that are great rolemodels? or even stranger, what if two teams wanted to work together for Chairmans?

I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". Maybe with the size of FIRST, with the number of phenomenal teams out there, this needs to be rethought?

I dunno... just trying to see the opposing viewpoint.

But we're talking about a whole nother animal when it comes to alliances. Alliances worked together to achieve that goal, two or three teams don't work together to win the chairmans award. They don't do the same things, work with eachother, do the same presentations together. Chairmans from the start has been about recognizing one team as outstanding, and the addition of the regional chairmans award was the origional push to recognize more teams for that honor.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Kim,
In listening to John Aberle present the Chairman's a few words stand out..."As we have come to expect from the best of our best..."

In reference to the Honorable Mentions... "These teams are achieving First's ultimate goal of transforming the culture..." and "It takes a major and sustained effort that these teams have risen to the challenge."

Finally..."Representing the spirit of First demands many diverse achievements demonstrated over many years."

[JaneYoung]

There is only one.
Simplicity is a key to keeping this in perspective.

However, the landscape is changing and will continue to change. It was so cool to learn about 1188's team mates in South Africa who do the team website. This is just one great example of how creative our FIRST teams are becoming and how they are developing in so many areas, collaboration becoming more focused and respected and more diverse.
FIRST is maturing, teams are maturing, rookie teams are being mentored by alumni of other teams, teams are working together more and more - these are exciting times and will only become more exciting with each passing year. It is great to be part of it.
Jane

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

... I think when FIRST introduced the concept of 2 and then 3 championship winners, we were all hesitant, and very reluctant. You were no longer had the "best FIRST Robot", you had to rely on someone else... you had "one of the Best Robots". ...

Kim, I think you have a valid point here, so I don't mean to slice this too thinly -- but don't we all agree that FIRST has never been about having "the Best Robot(s)"? I don't think there has ever been an award given for the the best robot. Some design awards recognize the best robot features, the tournament results recognize the best performance of robots as operated by their teams, and the RA, EI, and CA recognize the best team efforts toward our common goals.

It always grates on me a little when I read, hear, or see a media piece on FIRST describing it as a competition to build the best robot. Makes it sound like a dog show or a science fair ...

[santosh]

Personally, I would like to see multiple honorable mention teams like they do at Nationals.
Recieving an honorable mntion certainly puts tons of hopes in the hearts of many that did not win the whole thing.
I also thinks that having 1 winner makes it a lot more competitive and desirable.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by santosh

Recieving an honorable mntion certainly puts tons of hopes in the hearts of many that did not win the whole thing.

The sword cuts both ways, so to speak. Honorable mention can also make not winning more painful in 2 ways. First, and this happened to us last year at the Championship, if you are not the winner and do not receive honorable mention, you might now feel like, "Gee, not only did we not win, but we're not even in the top 4!". With no honorable mention there can sometimes be comfort in thinking that maybe you were just a bit shy of the winner perhaps finished second. On the other hand, I could see where being announced as a runner-up could be painful too, because of the feeling that you must have been so close and barely missed it.

Maybe I'm wrong and no one feels this way, but I'm just trying to point out that expanding the number of teams recognized could have unintended side-effects. What if you had a regional that had only a handful of submissions? How would a team feel if there were five submissions, and a winner and three runner-ups were announced, effectively leaving one team in last place?

[santosh]

Wow, that is a side of this arguement that I never saw. I guess you are right. But, this could help a team gauge their own ranking amongst some of the other top teams. It could help them gauge how much to step their game up.
Maybe maybe not. But I completly see your side of the arguement.

EDIT: BEST Robotics actually does their judging by a point system and they give you the ranking list of all the teams and break it down by the different sections they score you by. I don't think that it offends many teams, but then again it doesn't seem as if the BEST award (analagous to the Chairman's Award) is as big of deal to many teams in that competition.
(not actually sure of the compelete relavence to this discussion there is)

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by santosh

Wow, that is a side of this arguement that I never saw. I guess you are right. But, this could help a team gauge their own ranking amongst some of the other top teams. It could help them gauge hw much to step their game up. Maybe maybe not. But I completly see your side of the arguement.

I don't necessarily agree that a team should gauge their own ranking against other top teams. I think it's an inherent instinct to do so, but their "rank" should not urge them to "step it up" just because they were shy of winning the award. They should want to step it up regardless of where they placed. There is a fine line between looking at a role model team to emulate them and stepping up your game to look better for CA.

It's hard to compare teams and each of their activities and impact. One team's idea of "stepping it up" may not be what the judge determines as the winner anyways, so you just do what you feel is important as a team and portray those stories when CA times comes around.

I agree with Flowerday's assessment. Some regionals do only have a handful of submissions and I would not want anyone to be on the receiving end of knowing they were the only ones not recognized. Among that and other reasons, I still believe it should remain one at the regional level.

[JaneYoung]

It is good to embrace who you are and where you come from. How much experience your team has garnered. The personality and makeup of the team. To find the rhythm of FIRST and to establish the team rhythm. When these are understood, then team members can enter and leave as new members and as graduates yet the consistency of understanding is there and is handed down through time and mentoring. A first year team can not have gained the experience of the 7th year team - it takes all the 7 years of growth, build, competition, working on the different aspects of FIRST. And it takes patience and humor while growing. It's the journey that is the true value and it is that which will sustain you. The teams that achieve the Chairman's are worthy and have found ways to understand and work on all of the aspects and have been patient. No easy task.

Edit: I'm sorry, I'm not saying only an older more experienced team can garner the CA but I am saying experience is a great help in the effort and it is the teacher.