Something New – Chairman’s Award Eligibility

[JB987]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

This is going to lead to some serious friction during Week 6 events.

Teams trying to improve their Chairman's presentations and win the award (Either to be eligible for the Championship Chairman's Award, or just to qualify for worlds to begin with) will be very tense to win.

I can see this creating a great deal of disappointment for teams who bid for the award again in a late event, but fall short.

I'm on the fence with this. I like it since it means that teams won't have to decide what event they want to submit for, and that they can use the Judge's Evaluations they receive from their regional to improve. Not only does this help teams improve their presentations for the award, but it will be a valuable experience in learning about business presentations and speaking skills.

On the other hand, I don't like Chairman's Award being seen as an award that you can keep trying over and over for until you get it. I think that kind of devalues the award in the long run. When it's "One shot to win it all", I think teams appreciate the award overall much more. But now that we might be playing a game where teams pick events to allow them improve the most and better their chances of winning, I think this will make the award a little less prestigious. I don't think I really like the change.

Just a thought. Let's see how this goes first.

Just makes CA=EI opportunity (except EI comes with $$)

[themitchshow]

I wonder if teams in the district system will be allowed to submit at out of state Regionals? The post makes it seem like that, but since teams in the regional system aren't able to compete in districts it could come across as an unfair advantage for the district teams.

[PayneTrain]

Every other part of the team has the ability to improve throughout the competition season, now the Chairman's presenters do as well. This puts a lot of the gamesmanship of the RCA behind us because it's all obsolete. At least on the East Coast, you're either in a model that will already have you present at least twice in a year, transitioning to a model that will have you present at least twice a year, or you're stuck having to choose which 60+ team regional you put your bid in. The award is already significantly more difficult to win than it was 5 years ago purely because teams learned what was needed from them to win it trough trial and error. Now we're introducing more chances for kids to learn.

[cadandcookies]

I'll join the voices expressing approval with this change (though I might be a little bit biased because I'm the Chairman's Lead on my team).

In particular I love the opportunity to iterate our presentation and shore up what the judges suggest we improve on. I also like that it means we'll be able to compete against more (and stronger!) teams at each of our regionals. I'm looking forward to the level of competition going up!

In my opinion, more (positive!) competition is nearly always a good thing!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

On the other hand, I don't like Chairman's Award being seen as an award that you can keep trying over and over for until you get it. I think that kind of devalues the award in the long run.

You mean that it isn't that already? For some teams, that's what it is, save that the process is over years and years (or until the team throws in the towel).

[AllenGregoryIV]

Now that this change has happened for the Chairman's Award, will we see this for the Woodie Flowers Finalist and Dean's Lists Finalists Awards as well? Having to decide where to submit any award seems outdated all of a sudden.

[VexisDarksteele]

I wholeheartedly support this new system; as a former Chairman's presenter for the past two years, I can personally attest to the sheer amount of pressure that the previous system laid on our shoulders. Defeat was absolutely crushing, because you know that there is no second chance for that year -- any improvements made would not be enacted until the following season. Yes, the old system did instill a strong sense of urgency to push ourselves to be the absolute best we could, but I believe this new methodology will still achieve that while also granting teams a more rapid approach to evolving/improvement.

I think (/hope) that this change will encourage a lot of younger teams to start trying for Chairman's as well. Now that it's not quite "do or die" anymore, teams will begin to recognize that they may very well have a fair shot at winning the award, and just by trying for the Chairman's Award they will become even better teams than they already were.
Really, it's kinda crazy how a lot of young teams completely forgo trying for the CA because they're "waiting to become better/stronger" before they'll consider making an attempt. Applying for Chairman's is like being handed a step-by-step instruction booklet on how to become a strong team; in the beginning, teams will no doubt do community outreach solely for the purpose of the award. Why? Because that's the first step in the instructions. But once they build that foundation for themselves, once they get the feel for the process of success and are able to function without that guidebook, they will flourish and become truly great for all of the right reasons. And the best part about it? Even though the requirements for Chairman's are set in stone, the ways in which each team accomplishes them are entirely unique.
Trying for Chairman's right off the bat was probably the best decision our team could have made, as it DID show us what we need to do and why. We're still learning and adapting, and I think we always will be, because no team can ever stop improving. It just really helps a young team to hit the ground running, because once it finds and spreads its wings, it will one day be able to soar.

[waialua359]

As a HOF team, I think this is absolutely a great idea.

HOF teams were given the opportunity to give input during the summer about how we felt about the proposed (and now official) change to the RCA.
The biggest concern as shared by others here was making sure enough judges were available to accommodate an increase no. of teams competing for it, especially at bigger regionals.

Every year, there are great teams that get left out of an RCA based on the regional they choose to enter in.
Its just so much better to take it out of the equation, for the most part.

I can still see manipulation by entering at a later event, where teams may anticipate others winning it at a prior regional or week.
On the other hand, this is no different than teams choosing what regionals to enter as they try to win a blue banner or any categorical award.

Ultimately, I like the idea because the pool of teams competing for the CCA just got that much tougher, and there will be much less worthy teams getting left out of the running by the time CMP comes around.

I just hope one day, the EI award gets to be either judged or a submission can be entered similar to the Entrepreneurship Award during build season, having judges come by the pits to do specific interviews.
Based on my own personal observation, its seems that EI judging varies widely depending on the regional you attend, including CMP. How do judges determine which single team gets it out of 400 teams at CMP?
We won the CMP EI award in 2008. Yet never won it in our 14 year history at the 27 regionals we attended. Go figure?
Good luck to everyone this season!

[SteveGPage]

I think everything has been pretty much said about this topic, but I just wanted to add a quick note based on Glenn's post - I think this is a great idea! I love that this will raise the level of completion for both the RCA and CA, ensuring that the teams that work day in and day out to change their culture, will be recognized.

Thank you to the HOF teams for their input in helping make this happen!

Steve