New Chairman's Award Eligibility

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

This was true through 2008 but was not required for the 2009 season, I believe.

[Dave Flowerday]

An email our team just received had the following answers to some questions:

- HOF teams who resubmit at the regional level and win are eligible to win at the Championship level that year
- HOF teams will always retain their automatic Championship eligibility regardless.
- HOF teams can set up a HOF booth even if they reapply
- A HOF team who re-wins the Championship CA doesn't earn any additional benefits other than getting to keep the Chairman's trophy for another year

[waialua359]

The point from Jon about fixing something that didnt need fixing was good.
However, as a non-HOF member, we welcome it. If a HOF team is better than a non-HOF team or vice versa, then so be it.

I really dont think that its about ensuring HOF teams continuing what they did to get there.

I'd like to believe that FIRST, in its decision to elect 1 team to win the CCA, did so because they knew year in an year out, they would always be outstanding.

Personally, there is no secret that we have tried for the CA every year since 2006 (only applied once prior and won in 2003 at SVR). But we do the things we do, not because we're trying to win an award first and foremost,....its because its our team mission and goals.
More effort has been put in recent years only because we have a Hawaii regional and there are over 300+ organized Robotics teams now in the State of Hawaii, us being the first in 1999.

I'd like to think that the respective teams in their area are making the same impact and in doing so, can be recognized for their efforts in their RCA entry.

The field just got tougher and everyone has certainly stepped up their game.
I can think of a few teams off the top of my head from the mainland US that have a crack at it in the next 5 years, and I bet, I'll be right, with or without this new rule.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by waialua359

The field just got tougher and everyone has certainly stepped up their game.

I assume you mean the field got tougher as a result of this decision... if that's what you meant then I might disagree.

The field only got tougher IF some of the HOF teams choose to reapply (and that's assuming they will still have quality entries). I don't know that it's a given that any will reapply. Personally (not speaking for my team), I'd rather not compete for the CA again and instead see someone else win it (I'm not assuming that we'd win again if we applied, but if we don't apply then I know we won't win, so I figure the odds of someone else winning if we don't apply are as good as or higher than if we do).

If our team ever re-won the CA, I know we'd be excited. But I think that, honestly, a team who never won it before would be more excited and more inspired, and I'd rather see that. It's just human nature that the first time you reach a milestone it's much sweeter.

Personally, I just don't see a problem here that needs fixing, but if there really is a problem, then I agree with a previous suggestion that creating a separate award that only HOF teams can compete for would be a better solution.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

I assume you mean the field got tougher as a result of this decision... if that's what you meant then I might disagree.

The field only got tougher IF some of the HOF teams choose to reapply (and that's assuming they will still have quality entries). I don't know that it's a given that any will reapply. Personally (not speaking for my team), I'd rather not compete for the CA again and instead see someone else win it (I'm not assuming that we'd win again if we applied, but if we don't apply then I know we won't win, so I figure the odds of someone else winning if we don't apply are as good as or higher than if we do).

If our team ever re-won the CA, I know we'd be excited. But I think that, honestly, a team who never won it before would be more excited and more inspired, and I'd rather see that. It's just human nature that the first time you reach a milestone it's much sweeter.

Personally, I just don't see a problem here that needs fixing, but if there really is a problem, then I agree with a previous suggestion that creating a separate award that only HOF teams can compete for would be a better solution.

Dave,
actually I meant that since the time some of the HOF teams have won, the field now is actually tougher. Hence, I agree with some of your points.
I'd bet that many of the non-HOF teams are doing just as much if not more based on the fact that HOF teams in the past provided a benchmark of success and layed the framework for other teams to follow and exceed.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

An email our team just received had the following answers to some questions:

- HOF teams who resubmit at the regional level and win are eligible to win at the Championship level that year
- HOF teams will always retain their automatic Championship eligibility regardless.
- HOF teams can set up a HOF booth even if they reapply
- A HOF team who re-wins the Championship CA doesn't earn any additional benefits other than getting to keep the Chairman's trophy for another year

Thanks for sharing.

[Wayne C.]

Maybe instead of Hall of Fame it should be more like a 5 Year Alcove of Fame ?

[WEHickok]

I speak for myself and not for the entire HOT Team, but I really like the new rule. It gives the "option" of resubmitting if the HOF team desires. It is not a requirement. I like it when teams have choices.

The HOT Team has taken the position, since winning the CCA in 2005, that they would help other teams to have the feeling of winning the CCA. Yes, all of the students from that team are gone...in fact they are now out of college and working. But we try to keep the dream alive by hanging our CCA banner in the middle of the machine shop, displaying the CCA trophies at the workplace and in the schools, and talking about the experience at meetings. I still remember the excitement of winning...from waking up at 4am to actually holding the Clock that evening. The team also relives that feeling by having the honor of creating a HOF display.

I would like to see every team have that experience. Even though the students on our team have not seen that excitement, as a team they get to experience some of it. Our team continues to perform as a HOF team. We are, in my opinion, still doing great things. Are we doing things greater than other teams? I don't know. I see some great things from other teams.

This year we are not eligable to compete as the new rule allows. I don't know how the team as a whole feels, but I don't want to submit again. I want to help other teams to win this award. In my opion, we need more diversity in the HOF. Adding the Ticks this year will be great. I have watched their activities for some time, and they have done great things. Adding another team of this caliber will be great. The HOF teams already display what they do, let's see what others are doing. I can think of about a dozen teams that I believe really deserve to be in the HOF. I don't want the HOT Team from preventing them from being a part of the HOF. The experience of submitting and standing before the judges would be good for the kids, but I don't want to take the trophy and HOF status from them.

As to another way of keeping the HOF teams working, I have talked to FIRST about having a separate competion and trophy just for the HOF teams...having the presentations to the judges done in a public meeting so others could watch and learn. No bites, yet.

From the HOT Team, good luck to all teams that submit for the CCA. Keep up the good work...and may the best team win in Atlanta.

[EricH]

Just as a thought...

What if a HoF team who opted to submit for an RCA used it to plug another deserving team that was submitting at the same event? I don't see anything against this, either in the 2009 rules or in the info we have now on this. Sort of the ultimate example--"We already have the CCA, so here's who we think would make a good addition to the HoF and why."

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just as a thought...

What if a HoF team who opted to submit for an RCA used it to plug another deserving team that was submitting at the same event? I don't see anything against this, either in the 2009 rules or in the info we have now on this. Sort of the ultimate example--"We already have the CCA, so here's who we think would make a good addition to the HoF and why."

I really like this idea. Very similar to a conversation I had with another team leader when we seriously considered delivering each other's presentation ... and had we had more time to get the presentation groups prepared, we probably would have done it.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

As long time mentor in First, my team worked with the understanding that the Chairman's Award was so special a team could only win it once. I still feel that way. I don't even think of the students on team when we received the award are no longer part of the team. Every student, every year is part of the Wildstang CA team (even those prior to the award) and they participate in HOF as though they were on that original team. As a HOF member, I know how hard the award is to achieve. Teams submitting for this award know it is getting harder every year. They listen to the description at the Champs and wonder how they could ever achieve the same quantity of good deeds that the winning team has achieved. I think we are turning teams away from the attempt. Regional directors know how few teams are even submitting for this award at the regional level. To allow past teams into the mix, I am afraid, would turn even more teams away. We should be helping teams become HOF teams instead of competing with them. We need to let teams know that this is an achievable goal and not be part of the competition.

[Paul Copioli]

I don't post much lately, but I just can't hold my tongue.

This rule change is just plain stupid. Why spend even one second on a rule that addresses only 1% of teams when there are MUCH bigger items to address. Whoever spent any time on this item at FIRST HQ simply wasted their time.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I don't post much lately, but I just can't hold my tongue.

This rule change is just plain stupid. Why spend even one second on a rule that addresses only 1% of teams when there are MUCH bigger items to address. Whoever spent any time on this item at FIRST HQ simply wasted their time.

Paul, you're without a doubt one of my heroes in FIRST, but as a teacher I'll object to this statement. While I'm not 100% sure I'd implement it this way, it does allow students to participate in a process they couldn't participate in before. In my line of work we call that a "student-centered" decision. Suppose 217 were told it would never be allowed to compete on Einstein again? I bet we'd hear an awful lot from from <1% in those circumstances .

In the long run I'm not sure that this decision does anything but allow access to a student experience. While I'd prefer "cleaner" implementation - perhaps that separate classification that Al and Sean support, it's hard for me to argue with the face value concept here.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by EricH

5. The sooner somebody explains why, the happier I'll be about this.

It's not that I think it's a bad idea (which I'm still unsure about), it's that I want to know why this is going to be the case.

Chief Delphi is not an official FIRST communications path, so this would better be asked of FIRST officially, assuming you really want an answer.

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak

I decided that being a HoF team meant something different than being a team competing for an RCA or CA. Not better, just different.

I'd like to expand this to state that HoF teams are not necessarily better than any other team. In the year of their CCA award they WERE judged best of all teams. But not this year: they are different but not better.

By that I mean they are on an equal footing with any team submitting for RCA. They won't win it with a weak effort. Perhaps "they know what it takes" better than a non-HoF team to win CCA - but really, do you believe that? And if so, is that really an advantage?

Perhaps there ARE bigger fish to fry out there. Me, I see the added competition as healthy. If any HoF teams think they deserve RCA more than Team X: Bring It On!

Oh, yes, and between now and 20 years from now, someone will come up with something different, no worries.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I would like to bring up a perspective that I found very interesting;

Originally Posted by Gope

Having to live up to the status of Chairmans Award Winner is something that inspires old and new members alike.

From http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...50&postcount=1

Most of his post is unrelated to this though I suggest reading it because it shows a part of FIRST that I think some of us forget from time to time.

The part that was quoted shows a perspective of a student who came along a while after the CCA. The way I read that is, "I am trying to live up to the expectation that the team members before me set" Not living up to Dean or Woodie's expectations, but living up to the standards set by team that won that award and forever enshrined Baxter Bomb Squad as a role model in our eyes.

Whether or not this new rules change will impact this sort of thinking I can't tell you.