New Chairman's Award Eligibility

[ebarker]

Not to get too morbid but when an individual gets older, wins accolades, retires, gets the gold watch, and rides off into the sunset that is an expected lifecycle. The person dies, hopefully after a satisfying and productive life. A natural thing.

A team is not a person. It is an institution that is living breathing dynamic thing that evolves and adapts to new challenges and situations. It isn't fair to the team or its benefactors that they get permanently 'benched'.

Giving the team a 5 year break is a great idea. It is a good time to reflect and think about what they really want to achieve next and it will help motivate the troops when they get back in the game.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Giving the team a 5 year break is a great idea. It is a good time to reflect and think about what they really want to achieve next and it will help motivate the troops when they get back in the game.

But in future they won't actually be able to look forward to a 5 year break.
They'll need to be performing at Chairman's level several years in advance of their submission, just to have stuff to talk about.
So, before the last of the original freshmen are gone they'll have to be hard at work again.

[Bob Steele]

Would this mean that after 5 years they lose their automatic Championship eligibility status also? One thing that should be brought up is that with HoF status comes automatic eligibility for the CMP.

If they continue to compete... and they win... they are now double qualified and take up two of the qualifiers....eliminating some non-HoF team from qualifiying for nationals by winning a Regional CA.

I am not sure how I feel about that... but I guess its no different than one of the Hof teams qualifying as a Regional Winner and that has happened many times.

interesting

[Justin Montois]

I understand why it was done, I think, but I don't like it at all. No other sport requires a Hall of Fame member to "re-qualify"

That's the purpose of a Hall of Fame. To stand forever as a representation of greatness. No re-qualifying needed. I think this kinda ruins the aspect of what FIRST has created with it's Hall of Fame.

This seems like a step towards "What have you done for me lately?" kinda deal. I always assumed HoF teams have kept doing great things since they won and that was that. I liked it like that and I think it should have stayed that way.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

I understand why it was done, I think, but I don't like it at all. No other sport requires a Hall of Fame member to "re-qualify"

That's the purpose of a Hall of Fame. To stand forever as a representation of greatness. No re-qualifying needed. I think this kinda ruins the aspect of what FIRST has created with it's Hall of Fame.

This seems like a step towards "What have you done for me lately?" kinda deal. I always assumed HoF teams have kept doing great things since they won and that was that. I liked it like that and I think it should have stayed that way.

It doesn't say anything about re-qualifying. I think its really just to give teams an incentive again to keep doing what they did when they won the Championship chairman's. These teams have so much to give that FIRST still wants them to keep giving and showing everyone else how its done.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It doesn't say anything about re-qualifying. I think its really just to give teams an incentive again to keep doing what they did when they won the Championship chairman's. These teams have so much to give that FIRST still wants them to keep giving and showing everyone else how its done.

Correct me if I am wrong but HoF teams are required to submit a Chairman's Award document every year despite being ineligible to win anything for it. Barring that, teams the win CCA don't do it for the award, that is basically an unexpected perk. I'm sure that many teams know full well they never have a realistic chance at HoF status yet they still do good stuff.

As for the claims it is unfair, so is capitalism. Last I checked 90% of us lived in a country that reveres capitalism. If you want to complain about FRC, "OH NOES! Team XYZ has a budget that is 2x mine whatever will I do?" Try going into the business world and competing against someone with 150x your budget and 200x your size. Consider it good training. (And all you HoF teams, you now have a big target on your back, I hope I'm not the only one coming to beat you)

Really though, the decision has been made and whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, I just hope that FIRST will bestow some of its wisdom on us so that we mere mortals can hope to understand why it was made.

[Chris is me]

Just because life and FIRST isn't supposed to be fair doesn't mean some attributes of fairness aren't ideal. I know life isn't fair, FIRST isn't supposed to be fair, yeah yeah.

Consider this situation (which is a very real possibility next year when 67 becomes elgible again and 51 is at the same event, taking 2 of 3 Michigan RCAs potentially). Say Team A is a Hall of Fame team. Team B, who is just a step behind Team A, but almost as good and better than every other non RCA team in the country, loses to Team A at a regional. Team C, who is worse than Team A and B but still very good, is good enough to win an RCA at a separate event. Team C could enter the Hall of Fame when Team B is better.

I just don't see the reason or positive impact that allowing old Hall of Famers to win regional chairman's again will have. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Consider this situation (which is a very real possibility next year when 67 becomes elgible again and 51 is at the same event, taking 2 of 3 Michigan RCAs potentially). Say Team A is a Hall of Fame team. Team B, who is just a step behind Team A, but almost as good and better than every other non RCA team in the country, loses to Team A at a regional. Team C, who is worse than Team A and B but still very good, is good enough to win an RCA at a separate event. Team C could enter the Hall of Fame when Team B is better.

That would be like saying that Team A competed at a regional with 67,217,and 68 and lost despite being (in theory) just slightly less capable than those teams. Then having Team B which competed against 30 rookies and is, itself, only slightly worse than Team A. It would mean that Team B has a chance of qualifying for Atlanta over Team A who has a better robot (in this example) Team B could win the Championship when Team A is better.

Additionally, Team A is potentially mentally deficient in your example, I mean that in the most offensive way possible, if you see a team that has won RCA the last 6 years in a row competing at one competition and not at another (assuming you do two competitions and HAVE this choice) the only logical solution is to not submit it there. If you don't have that choice, then you should find a way to get that choice. Who knows, it might even give you a better chance of winning an RCA.

This sounds like a familiar concept, let us make sure everyone is equal. Competition is a GOOD thing, the stiffer competition you face the better you will be. My one regret from 2008? I never got to play against 1114. In your example Team A needs to grow up and BEAT 67/51.

I understand your concerns but I honestly don't think that giving teams more competition is a BAD thing.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I understand your concerns but I honestly don't think that giving teams more competition is a BAD thing.

I agree. I just think they are kinda ruining what the HoF and winning Championship Chairman's is supposed to mean.

[Jared Russell]

While I sympathize that teams in the HoF find themselves blackballed when it comes to culture changing awards, I do not think that this change is for the better.

Every year, the number of deserving RCA and CCA teams is growing far faster than the number of RCAs (a couple new regionals per year) and CCAs (a constant, one) given out. Putting even more deserving teams back into the pool just dilutes everyone's chances that much more. At older regionals, fantastic teams that have been of an RCA caliber for years already find themselves many spots down the pecking order simply because some others have been doing it longer. These teams now find themselves even further down the list.

[Rich Kressly]

It's been awhile since I've been a part of this discussion directly (I've now spent more time with 1712 than with 103), but I was once part of some conversations with people like Ed and reps from other hall of fame teams about these types of rules. I'll qualify by saying that these convos were largely informal, but I do know that these comments/ideas were reaching FIRST HQ staff/management as far back as fall 2004/spring 2005 so it doesn't surprise me to see it in the rules.

The one thing that seemed easy to agree upon (in those informal conversations) was the notion that, as time went by and students graduated, students lost an understanding what the CA is all about without the new students being able to go through the process - particularly the interview. I'm glad for those students on those teams that will now again be able to participate in a process they weren't able to before.

However, when you weigh out the whole eligibility thing, what other qualification spots you might be "taking away" from others, etc - it gets a little muddy in my mind. Maybe some clarification will be forthcoming, but if I were to list questions, the list would go like this (yes, I have an idea what I think some of these answers would be, but I don't want to assume anything here):
1. If I'm a HofF team do I retain my automatic lifetime invite to the Championship?
2. If I'm a HofF team who won CCA more than five years ago, I still have my automatic bid to the CMP, and I win RCA this year, am I "taking away" a Championship CA opportunity from another (albeit nameless) team?
3. If I'm a HofF team and I win RCA, can I compete for the CCA?
4. As a HofF team who is eligible to compete for RCA (and if I still get my automatic CMP bid), am I expected to do the HofF display work and staff it in addition to the "regular" CA work we do during the year?

[Michael Sperber]

The Chairman’s Award has always been a big mystery. Very few, if any, people know exactly what it takes to win. (And in my opinion, that is what makes the award special and what keeps the quality so high.)

For the most part, the students on a team turn over every four years. So essentially, a team that won the Chairman’s Award four years ago could be a very different team today. And even more so for a team that won 8 years ago! We also need to recognize that it is not just the current year team that wins the Chairman’s Award, it is the hard work of all the team’s students and mentors from previous years… winning the Chairman’s Award is not something that just happens in one year.

Unlike typical Halls of Fame where individuals are recognized, the FIRST Hall of Fame recognizes a team. So “standard rules of Halls of Fame” do not fully apply. We need to look at the FIRST Hall of Fame differently.

I think FIRST is looking for ways to keep challenging and encouraging the past Chairman’s Award winning teams to continue moving forward, to continue showcasing and promoting FIRST in their communities and to not rest on their laurels.

I believe that opening up the Chairman’s Award to previous winners (after an appropriate black-out period) is a good thing. I think it will numerous benefits to FIRST, the FIRST community as well as those previous winning teams. Some of those benefits include: development of new community outreach strategies and continuing to raise the bar for all teams participating in FIRST.

I also believe that previous Chairman's Award winning teams who choose to re-compete for the award are not going to have an advantage over other teams. In fact, I think the bar will be a little bit higher for these teams, as they will need to show that they still have what it takes.

[OZ_341]

I like to think of the CCAs as a pantheon of teams at a level above the rest.
Therefore a very simple solution is to create a contest in which the CCAs compete against each other. (a Hall of Fame Contest) This gives other teams the chance to win the RCA without taking the competitive edge away from the CCAs.
The CCAs still get to compete (at an elevated level) and we eliminate all of those confusing questions that Rich identified.
We should also allow the CCAs to continue competing for a specific set of other regional awards as well. Kids on those teams need to have something to look forward too, like everyone else.
All we need is a few trophies and a challenge for the CCAs.
We can solve the whole thing once and for all to everyone's benefit.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

1. If I'm a HofF team do I retain my automatic lifetime invite to the Championship?
2. If I'm a HofF team who won CCA more than five years ago, I still have my automatic bid to the CMP, and I win RCA this year, am I "taking away" a Championship CA opportunity from another (albeit nameless) team?
3. If I'm a HofF team and I win RCA, can I compete for the CCA?
4. As a HofF team who is eligible to compete for RCA (and if I still get my automatic CMP bid), am I expected to do the HofF display work and staff it in addition to the "regular" CA work we do during the year?

The subject may boil down to two issues:

a) how do we qualify teams to attend the CMP
b) how do we keep HOF teams engaged and fresh

Regarding (a) - Forever is a very long time indeed and allowing teams to be automatically pre-qualified for the CMP based on the fact that they were HOF back 217 years agos is a real problem. Forever qualification is IMHO an unsustainable proposition. The view from their peers might go like "How can that sorry bunch of bums that won an award 217 years ago even be considered to attend today. They are not carrying their weigh at all - what a bunch of freeloaders". Again we are dealing with teams, not persons. There is a danger of cheapening the HOF award in a couple of hundred years. Not to mention how we fit all these freeloaders in the building.

Regarding (b) - Refreshing a team and getting it back on track to achieving RCA performance is challenging enough. It may not be a reasonable expectation for a new group of students, mentors, teachers to participate in a "Super HOF" when in reality maintaining RCA performance may be all they can keep up with.

What I said in 217 years is really gonna happen in less than 21.7 years.

If we are going to keep FIRST fresh, exciting and relevant we have to keep it a Meritocracy, not an Aristocracy. We really really want to reward the really great teams that make up the RCA, CA, HOF.....but..........

.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ebarker

The subject may boil down to two issues:

a) how do we qualify teams to attend the CMP
b) how do we keep HOF teams engaged and fresh

Regarding (a) - Forever is a very long time indeed and allowing teams to be automatically pre-qualified for the CMP based on the fact that they were HOF back 217 years agos is a real problem. Forever qualification is IMHO an unsustainable proposition. The view from their peers might go like "How can that sorry bunch of bums that won an award 217 years ago even be considered to attend today. They are not carrying their weigh at all - what a bunch of freeloaders". Again we are dealing with teams, not persons. There is a danger of cheapening the HOF award in a couple of hundred years. Not to mention how we fit all these freeloaders in the building.

Do you really think this is a problem?

How many HOF teams are winning CCA and then ceasing all CA worthy activities?

I just don't see it.