Two Chairmans Winners Per Event

[Al Skierkiewicz]

This is a very special award and a special honor. I was happy to see regional awards for both Chairman's and Woodie Flower's as there are many deserving teams out there.
I disagree with the statement that teams don't do that much from year to year. A team who is worthy of the Chairman's award needs to be doing something every year. It is the only way.

[OZ_341]

I think their should be one winner only, although a Regional Honorable Mention may not be a bad idea.
EI and second place Chairman's are often confused by students and judges. EI should be more for spreading Engineering Interest rather general community activity or promotion of FIRST. Although there are many overlapping projects that teams create which are difficult to categorize.

Just to address the idea of Chairmans Teams slacking off. I don't think that most Chairman's teams sit back and relax. It is just not in their nature.

I can tell you for sure that we doubled everything we do this year and still did not win Chairman's in Philly. So I don't think that laziness is the problem. We just had different judges with a different idea of what made a team deserving of the award. Its not easy being a Philly Chairman's candidate there are just so many good teams!
And finally lets face it when you are seeking the highest honor in any competition, having two winners will not solve the problem. Eventually someone has to feel the sting of disappointment. This is how we learn and improve.

Good luck to all in the off-season!!!

[Jherbie53]

Only one team should win chairmans, but there could be an honorable mention for the teams that were really close. Lets say team A does a good job on there presentation and has done a lot to spread FIRST over the past year. Then team B has a great presentation and didn't do as much as team A did to spread FIRST. You can add as many teams in the mix as you want for this example, but twos good for now. Both teams are just as deserving of the award, but for some reason the judges choose one over the other. We don't know what tipped the scale to the team that won. Like OZ_341 said, you might have different judges every year, which makes it harder to win.

An honorable mention would give us an idea of who might of been second, but there really is no second when you are talking about chairmans. Why is there no second? you might ask. Because if you are doing anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to spread FIRST around, you are just as deserving as anyone for the award. Even if all you do during the off season is do one or two presentations for elementary schools or sponsor a LEGO league team, you are doing what really counts, spreading FIRST.

[RoboMadi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think its more about the process not about what do your team or how many 'numbers' of things they do in their community to spread the message of FRIST.

A team can do as many things as they want, but doing it every year and adding more to it is the hard part.
There are a lot of teams in FIRST (like to mention the HOF teams), that are all about the process. Members come and leave every year, which makes it harder to keep up with the momentum; but some teams have come up with extraordinary plans which have helped them not only creating a base, but also blossoming on that base.
Connecting back to what this post is about, i think there should only be one chairman award winner. As some people have mentioned before that teams does have an opportunity to win EI, which is fair enough
Also i do recognize the fact that as the FIRST is growing the competition will grow too, which does mean that every team has to work harder than ever before to keep up with their process, which actually can be a great learning experience.

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by RoboMadi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think its more about the process not about what do your team or how many 'numbers' of things they do in their community to spread the message of FRIST.

That is correct. The award is about sustained excellence over time. While it is true that a team should not win for the "amount of stuff" that they do, chances are a team that has been doing this for a long time will have many strong and long lasting projects. Teams should win for proven and sustained efforts which have been improved over time. A large number of short term, high impact projects should not be a basis for winning the Chairman's Award.

And in response to the recent posts. I actually like the Regional Chairman's Award as a concept. Too many great programs went unrecognized under the old system. Perhaps some improvements could be made to the process, but having regional winners has made the process more democratic. Before the national award process was "top /down". Now teams spring up from local grassroots efforts.

[sheltie234]

I have to agree with many who have already posted. The point of the Chairman's Award is to award the team who has best allowed the community know about FIRST, and there can't be two. Sure, there will be multiple teams at a competition who deserve it, but there should only be one winner. What about the National Chairman's Award? Should all of the teams who have already won win the National award because, yes, they all are deserving teams? I think there should only be one winner at each competition.

[Lil' Lavery]

There should only be one Chairman's Award given out per competition. Despite that, I am very much in favor of giving out honorable mentions to team that's deserve recognition, as is done at the Championship event and at the VCU regional this year.
Engineering Inspiration, while being similar in many regards to Chairman's Award, IS NOT THE RUNNER-UP CHAIRMAN'S! Even if the judging criteria were exactly the same (which it isn't), it is open to ALL teams who attend the regional, whether or not they submitted their Chairman's award there or they are eligible to win Chairman's (a FIRST HoF or even a rookie team can win EI, but not CA). Engineering Inspiration is about creating excitment about Engineering, Science, and Technology, and hopefully creating an impact in which more students persue careers in those fields. You do not have to be a "role model team" or "build a partnership" or fill several of the other CA recquirments.

[Athleticgirl389]

Chairman's Award is a very Honorable mention. To give it to more than one team (per regional) is weird. I mean, if you try year after year for it and do not win, just keep trying. It goes to show that you will never give up and have the persistence and everything to keep going for it. It defeats the purpose of giving it to more than one team. Sounds redundant, but it's the truth. Chairman's Award is, in my mind (perhaps in many other minds) the highest award given in FIRST; like a Nobel prize or something. It's just not given out at random or to teams who have tried over and over but failed. Speaking as someone who tried for the Chairman's Award for the 1st time this year with my team, it was not an easy task and I can see why it is such an honor to win it. The team that does win it deserves major congratulations because winning it is awesome and I look up to those teams when going to the next season and writing the Chairman's Award. Just keep trying and eventually you will get the ever-so sought after Chairman's Award.

[GaryVoshol]

What if, instead of additional Chairman's award winners per regional, those that won the award would be eligible to present at the Championships for more than one year? It would be like the WFA. I'd suggest a 2-year limit - it would effectively double the number of entries at the Championships. It would be a more difficult judging process, I'll grant that, so I wouldn't suggest a longer time limit. I woudn't think that teams would get a Chairman's one year and then completely slack off the next - and if any did, they wouldn't be judged very highly at the Championships.

[Freddy Schurr]

Here is how it should be:

1 Regional Chairman Winner

1 Regional Chairman Runner-Up Winner

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

What if, instead of additional Chairman's award winners per regional, those that won the award would be eligible to present at the Championships for more than one year? It would be like the WFA. I'd suggest a 2-year limit - it would effectively double the number of entries at the Championships. It would be a more difficult judging process, I'll grant that, so I wouldn't suggest a longer time limit. I woudn't think that teams would get a Chairman's one year and then completely slack off the next - and if any did, they wouldn't be judged very highly at the Championships.

The problem I see with that is it adds around 30 teams to the "Guaranteed" spot pool each year for Championship, along with the HoF Teams, last year's CA honorable mentions (which would now be qualified under a previous year regional CA winner), EI winner, and 1992 teams. That means 30 less spots for teams to attend without winning an event.
Additionally, the time limit is another huge factor, as you mentioned. I'm sure judging 33 teams is hard enough, let alone around 70+ (new regionals each year). Most regional events only have 10-20 entries for CA, usually no more than 15 or so.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The problem I see with that is it adds around 30 teams to the "Guaranteed" spot pool each year for Championship, along with the HoF Teams, last year's CA honorable mentions (which would now be qualified under a previous year regional CA winner), EI winner, and 1992 teams. That means 30 less spots for teams to attend without winning an event. ...

Why is it better to have more unearned Championship spots, rather than allocate those spots based on competition results or judged awards?

[Vu2000]

Wouldn't that create conflicts with scheduling Chairman's speeches with 60+ teams?