2007 Chairman's Honorable Mentions.

[JaneYoung]

Mateus,
Don't worry about 'choosing the wrong words' in your post, I understood what you said very well. It made sense to me.

What we may be looking at is a confusing situation and that can be confusing.

Not to worry,
Jane

[Carol]

I agree that the honorable mentions does give you good feed back that you are on the right track to Chariman's, and to give you encouragement to keep trying. however, I did not like how they have been presented in the past. Right before the CA was announced, they would say "and these teams have received honorable mentions for the Chairman's Award - team number ....etc."

Translation - " and these teams did NOT receive the CA this year...".

I thought it lessened the anticipation quite a bit.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Carol

Translation - " and these teams did NOT receive the CA this year...".

I thought it lessened the anticipation quite a bit.

I agree with you here, however I still believe that they should be announced and recognized for their efforts. I'm not really sure where to put them, since the CA fits as the ultimate award presented (in both senses of the word). It would probably detract from the award to list them afterwards. I can't really think of a good solution.

[OZ_341]

Speaking for a team that won the CHM twice, I can say that it is filled with mixed emotions. I don't think you can avoid the temporary letdown. Afterall you just found out that you did not win the Championship CA. Its the nature of the award, runnerups are always mentioned first.

But it is still a positive award. Its one of those things that takes a while to sink in. You certainly feel proud about it later on, as you consider the incredible teams that were regional CA winners.

As a side note this award has never had a consistent plan. It was not in the FIRST manual when we won in 2004. We didn't even know that there was a trophy. It arrived in the mail in July. In 2005 it was delivered to our pit by our Senior Mentor. Now this year they removed the award in same way it was created, without announcement or discussion. Its history is a little confusing.

I personally would like to see its return. For the small price of a few trophies, FIRST can provide some pretty important feedback. This is not only feedback for the teams that win CHM. Its also feedback for the teams that don't receive it.

I think its important to have these discussions. Thanks for starting this thread.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I agree with you here, however I still believe that they should be announced and recognized for their efforts. I'm not really sure where to put them, since the CA fits as the ultimate award presented (in both senses of the word). It would probably detract from the award to list them afterwards. I can't really think of a good solution.

Perhaps it should be changed to "Chairman's finalist" or "Chairman's nominee". Before the award, 3 or 4 finalists/nominees are announced, then the winner is announced from those 3 or 4 teams. Nobody is upset when they hear that they are a finalist/nominee, as they know that they are still in the running for the clock. The downside is that the other 37 teams know that they are already out, and they will be bummed.

[Mr MOE]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Perhaps it should be changed to "Chairman's finalist" or "Chairman's nominee". Before the award, 3 or 4 finalists/nominees are announced, then the winner is announced from those 3 or 4 teams. Nobody is upset when they hear that they are a finalist/nominee, as they know that they are still in the running for the clock. The downside is that the other 37 teams know that they are already out, and they will be bummed.

I like this idea. Isn't it the same way FIRST used to handle this area a few years ago? During our team's rookie year at the "Nationals" (at that time) at Epcot, this is how it was done. It makes sense and avoids most of the concerns of doing it. Also, it should be very clearly communicated in the Awards Section of the documentation.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Perhaps it should be changed to "Chairman's finalist" or "Chairman's nominee". Before the award, 3 or 4 finalists/nominees are announced, then the winner is announced from those 3 or 4 teams. Nobody is upset when they hear that they are a finalist/nominee, as they know that they are still in the running for the clock. The downside is that the other 37 teams know that they are already out, and they will be bummed.

Great Idea... and yes, from back in the day, I do remember it was done like this in the past (before their were regional CA winners). Honestly, I dont think the other teams would be bummed... We were one of the teams, and walked in knowing we were up against teams like MOE and teams that had a lot of history in it and some truly amazing programs, and were just incredibly excited that we had the chance to be able to present.

I think it would be helpful if FIRST brought back the HM award, or at the very least gave feedback sheets like they do at regionals.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Perhaps it should be changed to "Chairman's finalist" or "Chairman's nominee". Before the award, 3 or 4 finalists/nominees are announced, then the winner is announced from those 3 or 4 teams. Nobody is upset when they hear that they are a finalist/nominee, as they know that they are still in the running for the clock. The downside is that the other 37 teams know that they are already out, and they will be bummed.

I did think of this idea, and discarded it because of the downsides you mention, though in retrospect, I probably should have posted just to throw it out there (thankfully, you did).

Eventually, all other teams besides the winner are going to be let down in some way, shape or form. I still haven't decided if I like the old HM way better, or if I like the idea of Nominee's/Finalists, but it's a starting point.