[FRC Blog] 2019 Awards Update


#1

#2

::rtm::

While the Chairman’s Award is about “more than robots”, teams often leverage their robots to enhance their impact on the broader community. For this reason, it is expected teams in contention for the Chairman’s Award will have built a robot appropriate to the game’s challenges for the season. This does not require the team to have ranked at a certain level during the event, but does require teams to put in more than just the minimal effort necessary to field a drivable robot.


#3

The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.

Seems a little reminiscent of the 2011 “and their kits” Team Update.

Dave Lavery was quoted in that thread and I think it still applies today.

A little less time spent on turf wars, and a little more time spent on reaching the 95% of students who are oblivious to your existence, might be wise.


#4

I’m a little upset about the auto award. If this is another award that cant stack, a lot of really good robots are going to miss out on design awards at regionals simply because they have the only high level auto. I know “all awards are equal” but we all know they’re not. And this wouldnt feel as much of an achievement as industrial design, quality, or engineering excellence.

If it does stack and it’s an objective award like “highest rookie seed” then it’s fine.


#5

I feel like the teams that will win the auton award will be teams that put it on the same level as a design award, as they are teams that specify a high level of programming.


#6

Innovation in controls isnt seen as such despite it basically being an auto award…


#7

Nov 1, 2017 version of the chairman’s award description.

The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to have created the best partnership effort among team participants and which best exemplified the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large.

Webcache link for the Chairman’s Page

Today’s Updated Version

The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.

Just for a history lesson 1997 Chairman’s Award Description


#8

Seems like a judged award to me:

Guidelines
The award is based on the performance of the robot’s autonomous (non-operator guided) operations during matches

Consistent and reliable operation is weighted more heavily than the ability to score maximum points during any specific autonomously managed actions

A team spokesperson must be able to explain:
– How the robot understands its surroundings, navigates on the field or positions onboard mechanisms and then executes tasks.
– The factors the teams considered that could interfere with success during autonomously managed actions.
– The design, development, and testing that was done for the robot’s autonomously managed actions.


#9

I thought we already had an autonomous award though?


#10

Coming from a team that primarily used VEX programs to inspire the younger generations, the chairmans update is upsetting. If the mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators then it shouldn’t matter the means that brings said inspiration whether it be VEX, FIRST or any other STEM program.


#11

Maybe im blind but I hold IoC in the same regard as the rest of the engineering awards, and dont really know many who actually see it as truly “Lesser” besides the fact that its a bit too broad. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Also, who sees it as an auto award? the 4 times 4513 has earned it was all for things the bot could do in teleop…


#12

I agree. I wasn’t on the team when 842 won HOF, but a lot of what we did was outside FIRST programs. NURC, Railfair, Mate, and the numerous other things the team did certainly fall outside the scope of FIRST but were very influential in our community. I probably wouldn’t even have joined the school/team and been a part of FIRST had the team not reached the community in those ways. If a team is making significant impact in their communities, I don’t think it should matter if they are using FIRST, VEX, or any other tool to do so.


#13

I wonder what prompted this change. Are they preemptively trying to prevent some sort of chairmans-only team from forming?


#14

The Chairman’s Award is presented to the team judged to best exemplify the true meaning of FIRST through measurable impact on participants, school, and community at large with emphasis on promoting science and technology through FIRST programs.

The idea that FIRST would use their highest prestige award as a means for expanding their program makes a lot of sense from a business perspective… but from a culture change perspective and in terms of promoting their mission…

FIRST Mission Statement:

The mission of FIRST® is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

…I don’t think the new Chairman’s Award description improves anything. Promoting students to pursue STEM fields through non-FIRST programs such as VEX, BEST, etc. still helps to change the culture, and still works towards achieving FIRST’s mission. Even outreach projects and community engagement events that aren’t robotics related, but still promote STEM and engage with the local community about the importance of STEM, fulfill FIRST’s mission. I can understand the logic behind FIRST not wanting to promote their primary competitor in their target market… My biggest concern stems from the fact that the new wording seems to disincentivize general community engagement activities and other non-FIRST related outreach events that many teams do.

Non-FIRST related outreach is a staple of many FRC teams. Those teams create a massive positive impact in their communities and throughout world. I would hate for a (smart) business decision to cause these teams to discontinue their non-FIRST related outreach. Luckily, I believe many (I hope a large majority) teams aren’t motivated by the Chairmans Award, but instead are motivated by a drive to improve their community and the world.


#15

FIRST isn’t a for profit business they should be worrying about their mission and not who has more teams. If the Red Cross started changing policy to actively disincentives people from supporting cancer research I think a lot of people would get upset.

I believe in FIRST’s mission and have for a long time, I believe a little a less in the people employed to complete the mission today.


#16

Yeah, my team has won also won the Innovation in Control award 4x, and for at least one of them it was explicitly for something that could not be used in auto.

In other news, since the number of judged team awards has changed everyone who has district point prediction models will most likely need to go update them. I guess that will go on my to do list. Lol.


#17

For the auto mode, if “consistent and reliable operation is weighted more heavily than the ability to score maximum points during any specific autonomously managed actions” then the judges should be watching and scouting all matches, right?

I’m not holding my breath on this, but it would be a big step in the right direction. More of than not, there is at least one award that doesn’t match the on-field performance. My favorite was a team we moved to our “Do Not Pick” list after not being able to leave the corner of the field due to drive issues winning the Quality Award, which “celebrates machine robustness”.


#18

During my first year in FRC, my parents asked a question, considering it as a team sport. They were told by a mentor that it’s not a team sport; it’s a business…and it is.


#19

Depending on how scoring is recorded, I can create a report that shows your consistency in auto pretty easily. If auto is composed of “cross baseline”, “acquire game piece”, and “score game piece” and that’s reflected in the scoring data per robot it would be almost trivial to build a “most capable and consistent auto” report.


#20

Just because that may be how it seems to operate it doesn’t make it right.

FIRST is a non-profit with a mission statement. It should not care by what means teams work towards and accomplish this mission statement.