My mom and I were talking, and I said something to the effect of “The teams that normally win the chairman’s have robots that do well” meaning that having good robots gets them noticed and that’s why they can win the chairmans above other teams that the judges hadn’t heard of.
My mom replied to that with something along the lines of “The teams win chairmans awards because the have built the infrastructure needed to build good robots”
So which one is it, anyone have any thoughts?
I believe that it’s #2. Anyone can build a good robot, but if a team has an infrastructure that is successful enough to support themselves and other teams, and the community around them, I believe it leads to them having the ability to construct a good robot.
Cory
The chairmans award is not about the robot. FIRST looks at your overall team when evaluating you for this award. If your team has that strong infrastructure, then you will usually have a good bot.
I can definitely see both sides of it but personally I’ll lean towards the infrastructure. With good infrastructure not only can you build good robots but you also have the infrastructure to do a good chairmans award.
That is an interesting question which I doubt has a solid answer. I believe that it could happen both ways. I believe that some teams probably just work well as a team and do many things together that goes into chairman’s so when it comes time to build the robot, they work effectively and effiently as a team. Although some teams may win by being noticed with a good robot. I don’t think I have the experience or background to say which happens more, but I do believe that either is very possible for any winning team.
I honestly think that they are technically mutually exclusive, but historically are coorelated.
Good robots can theoretically come out of any team situation, whether good or bad…I’ve personally seen it happen both ways; and an infrastructurically sound team could totally miss the mark one year and build a robot that may be cool, but really doesn’t cut it in competition.
I think the historical coorelation stands because judges like to see the Chairman’s as a package deal: along with building a great robot team X also built a great organization (that has 6 hundred FLL teams, hosts three off season comps, cures Cancer, and makes a swell Reuben 
:p). Though, I dont think that because team X has a good robot they are looked at more by the judges…I think the submission comes first, but a solid robot definitely adds to the score later on.
Eggs?! Mmmmmmmmm… liquid chickens!
you gotta have a sound team to create a winning machine.
Personally, I don’t think the Chairman’s Award has anything to do with the robot.
Q: What are u supposed to convey when you apply for the Chairmans Award?
A: Your contribution to the awareness of FIRST in the community. By going out and doing exhibitions, getting robotics threaded into your school. Just do your part in spreading this amzing phenomenom know as FIRST. Mentoring Lego League teams, training for the high school robotics teams.
Also I believe a big part of the Chairmans Award is your team conveying this little thing known as Gracious Professionalism, which I am certain everyone in FIRST has heard of. Helping other teams when they have problems, mentoring, offering a place for them to practice, helping them fundraise, help them with problems they might be having with their school, etc.
Whether or not you end up with a good robot does not decifer whether or not you win the Chairmans award, the actual competition and the award are two completely different things.
Well, we’ve never won a regional before in 13 years of existence but we have won the Chairman’s award twice. So to get the award is more about how good are you at executing the virtues of FIRST not how well your robot runs in competition.
Having just won Chairman’s at St. Louis, I believe robot and infrastructure are separated fairly well. Our robot this year is not as great as our team. Our team won the award. As one of the judges told our students, “…not all awards are won by robots”.
A solid robot does not = regional win. With alliances, a great robot may be overlooked, or can be knocked out by a better pairing of teams.
This is also my reasoning for the technical awards…because things happen, awesome robots don’t always win regionals because of other reasons, but are still awesome robots in their own right.
That’s my opinion.
Our 2001 national robot didn’t have a chairman worthy team behind it at all.
South High rookies last year won SCRRF Practice competition - in their first year.
BIG GRIN
At Phoenix Regional emcee saw team member Breanne outside painting our team’s Gracious Professionalism trophy most of the day, and was so impressed realizing “this is so much more than about building robots” that he invited reps from our team to give the award out in the opening ceremonies on Saturday. That emcee gets it.
Now if only this could be put at the forefront of the competitions so when a media outlet actually bothers to show up and do a story about FIRST they are not just talking about the robots only and thus FIRSt would be cast in a light as something more than just a smart battlebots competition.
The Chairman’s Award has nothing really to do with the robot. I mean when we won it in 2001 our robot was not all that good, but you do need a very goog infrastructure to get The Award.
The converse of this is definitely true, because there are several teams on the opposite end of the spectrum as well. For example, Team Hammond has won three national championships, as many as six regional championships and yet have still never won a Chairman’s Award. Their infrastructure is fine, but is different from most teams because they have a different interpretation of the meaning of FIRST. It is not necessarily a bad interpretation, just not what you would call “Chairman’s Award Material.”
Mother knows best. While there is truth to the statement that good robots are generally found among good teams, that is more an effect of their infrastructure rather than a cause. Chairman’s is about infrastructure and partnership, both of which they dance around in the rules outline. Surely a good robot (or a line of good robots) can factor into a Chairman’s decision, but not necessarily.
I highly doubt in fact that a robot’s on-field performance will have anything to do with the Judges’ taking a second look at a submission. I further think that generally Chairman’s judges are busy enough that they won’t be watching very many matches (maybe one per Chairman’s team, but this is of course complete speculation and isn’t set in stone anyway). Maybe if a judge saw the team in the pits doing things to help out, or if the robot had a neat way of displaying a sponsor, etc. it might sway their decision, but otherwise, it’s about making those four pages count.
It might just break down in the end to the fact that there are good teams and bad teams, rookies and veterans. Perhaps this is why generally you’ll find an effective robot made by a Chairman’s team. One could say that successful teams understand what FIRST is about and what is expected of them. And FIRST rewards this understanding with a nice medal, be it Chairman’s or Champions.
I would vote for #2… A infrastructure is key and with a viable foundation many good things can then happen.