What Awards would you like to see?

[Rion Atkinson]

Well.. Inventor opens SolidWorks files... In theory couldn't you just resave them in Inventor? Then again... That's not waht they are wanting..

You could always have local just any CAD program, sense they aren't there anyway, and National Inventor only... Still not fair though..

[Cory]

I'd like to see the absence of the safety award.

[Fe_Will]

How about removing bumpers and having the Motorola Quality Award mean something again?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'd like to see the absence of the safety award.

Without derailing the thread, I'd like to see the safety award tweaked a bit towards internal processes and away from giant posters and labeling one's main breaker.

Now, awards I'd like to see:

-Functionality presentation. Sort of a play on the Delphi Driving Tomorrow's Technology award, the teams would have a short presentation about a particular feature (or combination of features, if they're daring) of their robot. The winning team goes on the field to repeat this presentation on Saturday, letting everyone get a better look without pesky things like defense and strategy getting in the way.

-Some sort of autonomous performance award. This wouldn't work every year (2009 would've been a bad example), but I imagine that the current scoring system could track it if configured for it.

-The return of the Play of the Day award would be nice, though only if there's a manageable process for deciding it. (I would note that the age of the Flip camera might make this easier than it was when the award went inactive earlier this decade.)

If the current slate of awards carries over, though, I won't lose sleep over it.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Without derailing the thread, I'd like to see the safety award tweaked a bit towards internal processes and away from giant posters and labeling one's main breaker.

I'd say that at least for the events I've been to and 2008 Atlanta this has been the case. Granted the same team has won every event I am referring to (sup CORE), but I think that standard at least exists if you're "good enough". CORE is leaps and bounds ahead of the curve on safety and do an awesome job of helping others (including 1714) approach said standards, but they don't send people running through the pits holding a safety sign up in the air.

I'm generally opposed to any kind of award that rewards the teams that do that kind of thing...

-The return of the Play of the Day award would be nice, though only if there's a manageable process for deciding it. (I would note that the age of the Flip camera might make this easier than it was when the award went inactive earlier this decade.)

I agree. There's been some amazing moments in many games that a simple award for would be nice.

I don't really get Regional Finalist awards, when a single elimination tournament only guarantees an accurate first place. You could argue that the semifinal opponent or the quarterfinal opponent is the true "runner up" for an event. I definitely don't want it removed, but it's a little weird.

I would support Regional CAD (1714's big Inventor team can't go to waste trophy wise!). Not sure what else, but I'm always in favor of adding more on field and non-ludicrous off field awards, provided the professional nature of the award ceremony is maintained (sorry mascot dance contest). Stuff like Highest Score, #1 seed award would all be neat things.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

How about removing bumpers and having the Motorola Quality Award mean something again?

I would venture to guess that there is a lot more that goes into the Motorola Quality Award than the removal of bumpers. I understand your point but many judges who are looking at the machines know how to look beyond the bumpers. Well beyond.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I think all robot function awards need proof that they work on the field during a match, otherwise its just theory. It maybe a cool idea but its not a robot function, and should be given a judges award or something.

Each Regional is supposed to have field judges who are already verifying.

Suggest rookie awards be adjusted if there are a small # of rookies. (2 or <)

I would like to see another opportunity for a mentoring award on a regional level only as the number of teams grow. The Woodie Flowers Award is an amazing honor, and I wouldn't want to take away from it. But think there should be more opportunities to honor outstanding mentors who play a variety of roles on teams.

[Jared Russell]

I for one don't see the need to bring back #1 seed and high score. I think that all too often it would be the same teams that already win most of the regional awards just adding another plastic trophy to their haul.

I think we need to broaden the awards given (if anything) - not deepen them.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

Each Regional is supposed to have field judges who are already verifying.

My team won the Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control award for a tracking and firing autonomous camera mode we never used on field...

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

I would like to see another opportunity for a mentoring award on a regional level only as the number of teams grow. The Woodie Flowers Award is an amazing honor, and I wouldn't want to take away from it. But think there should be more opportunities to honor outstanding mentors who play a variety of roles on teams.

I agree with this suggestion whole-heartedly. Some mentors are professional engineers and aid in the design process. Others are machinists and tradesmen who help to build robots and teach hands-on skills. Others focus on media/web. Others serve more behind-the-scenes logistical and organizational roles. Still others primarily focus on work in the community and spreading the work of first.

A single trophy and single set of criteria for all of these types of mentors is not enough.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

My team won the Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control award for a tracking and firing autonomous camera mode we never used on field...

This happens all of the time with technical awards (and for that matter, non-technical awards). We've all seen teams get trophies for things that didn't quite work right, or that they didn't even use. And we've all seen dominating bots with ingenious features go unrecognized.

Of course, this happens because of the enormous amount of information that our volunteer judges must process. 50+ teams at a regional, each with a robot, pit display, and a half dozen to a dozen on field performances crammed into two days of judging is a lot to reconcile.

I think that more explicit separation of robot awards designed to reward effective on field performance (autonomous modes, awesome manipulators, overall design) and technical innovation (design processes, materials usage) would help. I also think that technical judges who are more closely involved with FRC, who understand where "the bar" is set and know when what a team is saying about their robot sounds fishy would be a great aid to those Regionals that do not yet use such judges.

[Beth Sweet]

I would like to see some sort of a "Up and Coming Culture Changer" award for a team that is doing great stuff, but just hasn't been doing it quite long enough to compete with the more experienced teams. This program, in its mission, is about changing the culture, but it kills me that really only Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration highlight these aspects, when there are so many awards which highlight robot performance and engineering excellence.

(Please don't get me wrong, I truly encourage highlighting engineering excellence, it is a very good thing, I just feel we should place more focus on the organization's stated mission)

[Tetraman]

How about a Rookie Volunteer Award? Given to a FIRST volunteer in their first to third year of volunteering?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

I would like to see some sort of a "Up and Coming Culture Changer" award for a team that is doing great stuff, but just hasn't been doing it quite long enough to compete with the more experienced teams. This program, in its mission, is about changing the culture, but it kills me that really only Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration highlight these aspects, when there are so many awards which highlight robot performance and engineering excellence.

(Please don't get me wrong, I truly encourage highlighting engineering excellence, it is a very good thing, I just feel we should place more focus on the organization's stated mission)

I definitely support the general idea here. I'm not sure about how to execute it though, or how to make it so that specific regions whose awards in these fields are won by exactly those teams (well, obviously not RCA, but I've seen EI used in that manner exactly)... I think the Judge's Award is a fairly adequate tool for recognition of such things.

[Akash Rastogi]

I wanted to put out there again, that if anyone has a serious suggestion that is plausible and makes sense, feel free to e-mail FIRST with your suggestion instead of just voicing it here. I'm emailing about the Inventor award tonight.

Anyone have a suggestion of who specifically to email?