New Chairman's Award Eligibility

[EricH]

1. I don't like the new criteria.
2. I don't like it because the reasoning hasn't been explained.
3. I agree with Andrew about the HoF teams having to submit without getting anything.
4. This (#3) may be why there's a possible return to RCA eligibility.
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.

[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.

[Meredith Novak]

As a mentor for a HoF team who won a RCA after the establishment of the HoF (something I don't think was supposed to happen) I have, I believe, a unique perspective on this situation. (We had never before won an RCA as we won the CA before there were RCAs.)

Since we were required to do a Chairman's submission to retain our HoF status, we were sort of in the pool of teams competing at the regional level, though I don't think that was ever the intent. So we "accidently" won an RCA and everyone was excited and a little confused. But I had a real how-can-we-unring-this-bell moment of clarity when I heard Mr. Novak say, "Did you see the faces of the team who should have won this here?"

At that moment, 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 have spent the last 6 years pondering that and trying out things (mostly unsuccessfully, I admit) to define the HoF status and responsibilities for our team.

Until 2009, we were still required to submit for a CA and I would go to the officials of our regionals and inform them we would not be presenting for the award and explain why we were not in the running for an RCA.

I personally feel frustrated by this decision because it flies in the face of my contention that HoF teams are not merely RCA re-treads but should serve as a resource and inspiration for other teams. Like I said, we have not done a good job at this, but I thought we were at least working on it. As a HoF team, it is our responsibility to elevate others.

In my opinion only: if a HoF team desires another award, they should help another team win one.

-

[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.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

I DO NOT see it is currently a problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO disrespect at all directed at any of the HOF group.

The comment I was making (and was in quotes) was from a hypothetical group of students 217 years from now. 217 years is a long long time.

I'm very interested in answering the questions - What is a HOF team to do ? What is the team to do 20 years from now ?

It isn't a scientific survey but I sense it is a question every HOF mentor and student struggles with.

IMHO - Our lives are not a state of being but a journey to somewhere. If I were ever so fortunate as to be associated with an HOF team then for me it would be a challenge figuring out where the "road less traveled" leads.

Apologies to all if there were any slight taken.

.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Karthik

This change is interesting to say the least. I'm curious as to what prompted it.

I'm not sure, but this is great news! In Hall of Fame team meetings with FIRST this has been discussed numerous times. I think it is great because once a team has won CCA, those students on the team at that time fade away and newer members don't fully understand what the Chairman's award entails. Teams over the years change because the students change. This is a great opportunity for CCA winning teams to have their newest members experience the Chairman's award.

Cass

[Jon Jack]

To me, this is a great example of fixing something that never needed to be fixed.

2010 will be FIRST's 18th year, that means there can only be 16 HoF (191 has won two CA). Furthermore some of the HoF teams have folded, leading to even fewer teams eligible for automatic entry to the Championship. As I count there are only 12 sustaining HoF teams, which means less than 4% of the teams attending the Championship are HoF teams. We are a long-long way from worrying about filling the Championship with HoF teams. But this change doesn't effect their eligibility, so this is a moot point.

If the concern is really about keeping the HoF teams engaged, then create a HoF award that only HoF teams can compete for. However, I don't see keeping HoF teams engaged as an issue. It's not like 254, 103, 175, 16 or any of the other HoF teams just ceased all their community involvement after they won CCA. All of those teams still act as role models for other teams to learn from.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point.

[Kristian Calhoun]

Originally Posted by Cory

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

I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak

In my opinion only: if a HoF team desires another award, they should help another team win one.

I would like to amend this statement to "If a team desires another award, they should help another team win one."

Similar to how Hall of Fame teams continue "CA worthy activities" long after winning, for some Regional Chairman's Award winning teams, winning a RCA once is enough validation of their efforts. They continue to "do the right things" even if they choose not to directly compete for a RCA in future seasons.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

There are 2 or 3 CCA teams that no longer compete at all for whatever reason. Admittedly, this also means that they don't take spots at the Championship.

For the vast majority of cases, though, you are quite correct. The HoF teams are maintaining their activities that got them there in the first place and adding new ones. Many of them also win their way in each year, regardless of HoF status.