Regional Championship or Regional Chairmans?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This is my personal opinion and should be used in no way to reflect the opinion of my team as a whole.
While I'd readily take either award, and pour my soul into striving to win them both, I'd rather be a regional champion at this point. I don't need a judge to tell me that I have helped inspire and that I'm working to spread FIRST. I know I am. I may not be doing quite as much as the top notch teams we've submitted against the last few years (namely 341 and 1002, both of which have won 3 RCAs and have been CMP CA Honorable Mentions), but I am doing plenty. I have seen and heard the reactions at our outreach events, to our publicity, to our team, and I know I am helping.
I also know the feeling, the buzz, after winning a big match. I know the excitement when taking the field during the eliminations. And I want that again.

There is a lot of honest truth in Sean's post. I know it reflects the comments of many VIPs that I have escorted at FRC events, who understood all of the judged awards as consolation prizes for teams that worked hard but did not seed high or do well in the tournament. For these visitors, their tour of the pits is like a peek backstage, while the real show is on the field. The ones that we recruit to be judges change their minds about that.

But many top business leaders (who don't have the time to serve as judges) share Sean's view of the competition; i.e., the teams that 'get it' already know that they do, and at the event they are the ones that will succeed on the field. Or not, since sometimes the breaks don't go your way.

I still think the awards are important recognition. Especially the Chairman's award. As Woodie says, we get the best of what we celebrate. But I do understand that some FIRSTers would rather measure their team's success by its record in competition.

I want to say there is something very American about that; does that seem patriotic, or just US-centric?