New Chairman's Award Eligibility

[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.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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

Thanks, Andrew. Nice find. How did you happen to dig this gem up?

Meredith, if you're reading -- has the poster that Andrew cited returned to visit the Bomb Squad?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Richard

Thanks, Andrew. Nice find. How did you happen to dig this gem up?

Same way I dig up most things, Spotlight finds em (or cross thread linking) and then I dump it away to my bookmarks folder for future use, I quite a few threads bookmarked for various things.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Hey Cass! I'm with you 100% with the experience for new team members as I stated above. I'm sure you were probably in the same room at the same time when I talked about this years ago. I'm thrilled that 103 team members will once again have this opportunity.

However, if HofF teams remain pre-qualified and one wins RCA, there will indeed be one less team qualfied for the Championship than qualified under the previous set of rules. That being said, you can say the same thing for multiple regional winners, HofF teams that win on the field, etc. So I'm not sure how much weight that little thought should have, it was just one of the questions that came to my mind.

So to this I think what needs to happen is that say if at a regional the RCA winner is a CCA winner, then the runner up to the RCA at that regional (not the EI winner, but the runner up) should be qualified to go to CMP. If at CMP the CCA winner so happens to be a former CCA winner, then the runner up should get to qualify for CMP. That's how I see the spot for CMP to be fair. Idk, just my two cents again.

Cass

[rsisk]

I think it is tough enough to chose the RCA recipient, imagine having to rank the RCA candidates so the runner up could be selected, and if they are a CCA recipient, then go to the next runner up...

The RCA is all about the team's embodiment of what FIRST is, and whether you won RCA or CCA previously shouldn't be part of that equation.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by rsisk

I think it is tough enough to chose the RCA recipient, imagine having to rank the RCA candidates so the runner up could be selected, and if they are a CCA recipient, then go to the next runner up...

The RCA is all about the team's embodiment of what FIRST is, and whether you won RCA or CCA previously shouldn't be part of that equation.

Well, I know in the past Honorable Mentions used to be made at Championship. But I agree, ranking would be near impossible.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Well, I know in the past Honorable Mentions used to be made at Championship. But I agree, ranking would be near impossible.

The honorable mentions weren't always who finished 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for the award, though.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

They've actually won 26.



Given the clarification posted a few posts ago by Dave, I agree with Al's idea. It seems like it's basically just to allow the HoF teams to keep attempting to put new hardware on their shelves (and hopefully causing them to "step up" their game since winning the trophy), so why have it come at the expense of other teams attempting to win the award? I second the thought of having a HoF recognition award.

I have said the EXACT same thing for years, even before my team won the CCA. The HoF teams should have an award to compete against each other for a HoF award. I like the idea of letting old CCA winners attempt to win a RCA and CCA again since the team as it stands now is completely different then when they won the award. Let the kids and new mentors learn the process of preparing for an interview and setting up a project with visuals and speeches. I always thought the whole idea of FIRST was so help inspire kids and get them ready for the business/educational world, why limit what kids can be part of because the team they joined won a CCA 12 years ago.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

-

I stayed out this until I read what you said....help another team win one.That is exactly what we decided to do! I am glad you mentioned this! This is what I think HOF teams should do. It would help spread the message to more people. To me helping another team win one is the definition of gracious professionalism!

[Kims Robot]

So this means all these teams can come back and compete all over again??
191, (7), 151, 144, 47, (23), 120, 16, 22, 175, 103, 254

To be honest, I would wonder if these teams would want to... Im certain there has to be some sort of relaxation to finally winning and just going off to do what you do without having to video & write like crazy. Although maybe 5 years is enough of a breather/break, and its time to get the new kids in gear and give them the opportunity to present??

Although I have to say, I thought it was kind of fun growing 1511 in "the only town to have a two time championship chairmans award winner". Now that may be more common??

After reading all of the points here, I think there is a lot to chew on...

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Making an analogy to the nonFRC world, should a singer who had a hit 20 years ago still be considered a modern sensation?
20 years from now they shouldnt be able to say, "I won that award back in 2004 and I'm going to Championships based on that" Perhaps FIRST could have HoF teams reevaluated every 10 years or so and decide their HoF status

I disagree with this... Elvis is still "the king" Michael Jackson is still "the king of pop", along with many many other greats that will be remembered for a very long time... despite the fact that perhaps at the ends of their careers and lives they werent the same people they were when they were at the height of their popularity. Its the idea that at that time, they did something revolutionary and affected SO many people, that they deserve our praise, and that people still worship them long after they died. Take art as an example, 90% of painters dont become famous until they are dead... long after their "useful period" has expired. Yet do we say that Michaelangelo doesnt deserve the fame anymore?

I dont see any team that wins at the championship level just sitting back and riding their way to championships... even 20 years from now. Every one of them worked to get where they are because of their ideals, not because of the award or the ride to championships.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Personally (not speaking for my team), I'd rather not compete for the CA again and instead see someone else win it.

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.

Bingo & Bingo!! I remember our Rookie year, when 1511 won RAS, and we realized that we were still going to regionals, and might be taking the joy and amazement (and championship qualification) away from another rookie team, we immediately wrote a letter to the judges asking them not to consider us for RAS. It wouldnt have been as sweet, and it was definitely more amazing to watch the other teams win, knowing they could now join us down at championships. We did the same thing with the Engineering Inspiration award our second year. I have to imagine CCA is better on a much grander scale.

Originally Posted by EricH

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?

Personally... this makes me shudder... nearly uncontrollably... while the intention is good, I can see it becoming a political mess for the judges to sort out... which team has the most friend teams... Ugh.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

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.

I love everything you said in your post Al... Not because it makes the pool easier, but its so much more noble for a HoF team to be helping the teams around it rise to its level, rather than going up to bat against them. If I didnt know so many of the HoF teams, I would be worried that things like the championship "creating a chairmas submission" type conferences would go away, because everyone would be striving to compete again.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I would like to bring up a perspective that I found very interesting;
Whether or not this new rules change will impact this sort of thinking I can't tell you.

I have to wonder if you are right... all the HoF teams I know are so amazing, and amazingly nearly every HoF team has been able to instill that attidude throughout the team. Sure each new kid doesnt know what its like to run down to the stage and receive the trophy, but they are now expected to act like they did, they must live up to that greatness, up to that level, and make their teams just as proud. Thats a big weight to carry, but a whole level that didnt seem to be considered in this new rule...

Thinking through all this, I really hope that all the CCA teams choose not to submit (to prove a point), or even better, choose to submit to give their kids the opportunity to present, but at the end of their presentation, ask only for feedback, ask NOT to be considered for the trophy... Not to say they would have to follow this, but I personally dont want my ideal picture of all of these amazing teams to change... I dont want to compare them to the new CCA competition... I want them to be the great teams I remember the years they won.