New Chairman's Award Eligibility

[Karthik]

I'm surprised that no one has posted about this.

Originally Posted by Chairman's Award Criteria

"Hall of Fame members, a/k/a teams that have already won the Chairman’s Award are ineligible to compete for the Regional Chairman’s Award for five years. Teams that won the Chairman’s Award at the Championship prior to 2005 are eligible to participate in 2010. Teams that won in 2005-2009 are ineligible."

Obtained from here.

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

[Meredith Novak]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm curious as to what prompted it.

Ditto that. Anyone have a heads up on this? Or a reason why? I don't recall ever being involved in a discussion or hearing a recommendation for this revision. It was my understanding that one of the reasons for establishing the HoF was to remove these teams from the very stiff competition for Chairman's Awards. It is increasingly difficult (as you all know) to win a CA or RCA. There is no restriction on HoF teams to not perform well enough to earn a CA - in fact, we should be really obligated to do so even if it is not officially judged. So the point of this is totally lost on me.


-

[Akash Rastogi]

Interesting as to why. But it sounds like an awesome challenge to live up to these great HoF teams who everyone will be competing against once again (hopefully most of them still enter for Chairmans) Should be awesome.

[JaneYoung]

Koko Ed has talked about being an older HoF team a couple of times that I remember here in ChiefDelphi, regarding FRC 191, the X-Cats, and the HoF win(s).

My thinking is that so much time passes for the older HoF teams that the win can lose its edge and/or the value can become obscured for the current team members that were not around when that award was garnered.

I understand what Meredith is saying but we are working with teenagers who won't necessarily make that connection. I think it could breathe new life into the teams involved in this change and give them the inspiration to go for it - again.

This is just an opinion, I don't know what prompted the change, but I like that it presents new opportunities and possibilities for the teams involved and their fellow competitors.

[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.

[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

[Justin Montois]

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.

I didn't mean they have to officially "re-qualify" it just seems like that's what we are making them do by having them submit for the chance to win the award. What do the other teams that are in the HoF think about themselves when a year ago, they were all on the same level, Championship Chairman's Award Winners and HoF members. Now one of them wins? Are they above the rest now?

This just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.