New Chairman's Award Eligibility

FIRST General Forum
#21

The Chairman’s Award has always been a big mystery. Very few, if any, people know exactly what it takes to win. (And in my opinion, that is what makes the award special and what keeps the quality so high.)

For the most part, the students on a team turn over every four years. So essentially, a team that won the Chairman’s Award four years ago could be a very different team today. And even more so for a team that won 8 years ago! We also need to recognize that it is not just the current year team that wins the Chairman’s Award, it is the hard work of all the team’s students and mentors from previous years… winning the Chairman’s Award is not something that just happens in one year.

Unlike typical Halls of Fame where individuals are recognized, the FIRST Hall of Fame recognizes a team. So “standard rules of Halls of Fame” do not fully apply. We need to look at the FIRST Hall of Fame differently.

I think FIRST is looking for ways to keep challenging and encouraging the past Chairman’s Award winning teams to continue moving forward, to continue showcasing and promoting FIRST in their communities and to not rest on their laurels.

I believe that opening up the Chairman’s Award to previous winners (after an appropriate black-out period) is a good thing. I think it will numerous benefits to FIRST, the FIRST community as well as those previous winning teams. Some of those benefits include: development of new community outreach strategies and continuing to raise the bar for all teams participating in FIRST.

I also believe that previous Chairman’s Award winning teams who choose to re-compete for the award are not going to have an advantage over other teams. In fact, I think the bar will be a little bit higher for these teams, as they will need to show that they still have what it takes.

#22

I like to think of the CCAs as a pantheon of teams at a level above the rest.
Therefore a very simple solution is to create a contest in which the CCAs compete against each other. (a Hall of Fame Contest) This gives other teams the chance to win the RCA without taking the competitive edge away from the CCAs.
The CCAs still get to compete (at an elevated level) and we eliminate all of those confusing questions that Rich identified.
We should also allow the CCAs to continue competing for a specific set of other regional awards as well. Kids on those teams need to have something to look forward too, like everyone else.
All we need is a few trophies and a challenge for the CCAs.
We can solve the whole thing once and for all to everyone’s benefit.

#23

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.

#24

The subject may boil down to two issues:

a) how do we qualify teams to attend the CMP
b) how do we keep HOF teams engaged and fresh

Regarding (a) - Forever is a very long time indeed and allowing teams to be automatically pre-qualified for the CMP based on the fact that they were HOF back 217 years agos is a real problem. Forever qualification is IMHO an unsustainable proposition. The view from their peers might go like “How can that sorry bunch of bums that won an award 217 years ago even be considered to attend today. They are not carrying their weigh at all - what a bunch of freeloaders”. Again we are dealing with teams, not persons. There is a danger of cheapening the HOF award in a couple of hundred years. Not to mention how we fit all these freeloaders in the building.

Regarding (b) - Refreshing a team and getting it back on track to achieving RCA performance is challenging enough. It may not be a reasonable expectation for a new group of students, mentors, teachers to participate in a “Super HOF” when in reality maintaining RCA performance may be all they can keep up with.

What I said in 217 years is really gonna happen in less than 21.7 years.

If we are going to keep FIRST fresh, exciting and relevant we have to keep it a Meritocracy, not an Aristocracy. We really really want to reward the really great teams that make up the RCA, CA, HOF…but…

.

#25

Do you really think this is a problem?

How many HOF teams are winning CCA and then ceasing all CA worthy activities?

I just don’t see it.

#26

I DO NOT see it is currently a problem !!!

There is NO disrespect at all directed at any of the HOF group.

The comment I was making (and was in quotes) was from a hypothetical group of students 217 years from now. 217 years is a long long time.

I’m very interested in answering the questions - What is a HOF team to do ? What is the team to do 20 years from now ?

It isn’t a scientific survey but I sense it is a question every HOF mentor and student struggles with.

IMHO - Our lives are not a state of being but a journey to somewhere. If I were ever so fortunate as to be associated with an HOF team then for me it would be a challenge figuring out where the “road less traveled” leads.

Apologies to all if there were any slight taken.

.

#27

I’m not sure, but this is great news! In Hall of Fame team meetings with FIRST this has been discussed numerous times. I think it is great because once a team has won CCA, those students on the team at that time fade away and newer members don’t fully understand what the Chairman’s award entails. Teams over the years change because the students change. This is a great opportunity for CCA winning teams to have their newest members experience the Chairman’s award.

Cass

#28

To me, this is a great example of fixing something that never needed to be fixed.

2010 will be FIRST’s 18th year, that means there can only be 16 HoF (191 has won two CA). Furthermore some of the HoF teams have folded, leading to even fewer teams eligible for automatic entry to the Championship. As I count there are only 12 sustaining HoF teams, which means less than 4% of the teams attending the Championship are HoF teams. We are a long-long way from worrying about filling the Championship with HoF teams. But this change doesn’t effect their eligibility, so this is a moot point.

If the concern is really about keeping the HoF teams engaged, then create a HoF award that only HoF teams can compete for. However, I don’t see keeping HoF teams engaged as an issue. It’s not like 254, 103, 175, 16 or any of the other HoF teams just ceased all their community involvement after they won CCA. All of those teams still act as role models for other teams to learn from.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the point.

#29

I would like to amend this statement to “If a team desires another award, they should help another team win one.”

Similar to how Hall of Fame teams continue “CA worthy activities” long after winning, for some Regional Chairman’s Award winning teams, winning a RCA once is enough validation of their efforts. They continue to “do the right things” even if they choose not to directly compete for a RCA in future seasons.

#30

There are 2 or 3 CCA teams that no longer compete at all for whatever reason. Admittedly, this also means that they don’t take spots at the Championship.

For the vast majority of cases, though, you are quite correct. The HoF teams are maintaining their activities that got them there in the first place and adding new ones. Many of them also win their way in each year, regardless of HoF status.

#31

I don’t think this is about taking away a CMP spot from anyone. I think this is providing teams newer members with the same experience it’s previous members had. Once a team becomes apart of the HOF, then the members on the team years following are missing a step in the FIRST process. That’s just how I see it. lol

Cass

#32

At the moment it isn’t, Ed was merely remarking that a team could rest on its past accomplishments. FIRST is young, how many HoF teams are there (17?) Right now I am sure those teams are still tremendous role models, 2 decades from now what happens? Perhaps 254’s school closed down and they lost their sponsors, should a team that builds the kit hoverbot and barely manages to do any community outreach still be a role model just because 2 decades ago they were? (I chose 254 because they were the CCA award winners my freshman year more than any other reason)

Making an analogy to the nonFRC world, should a singer who had a hit 20 years ago still be considered a modern sensation?

Ed does make a good point that HoF teams having a lifetime invite to Championships is a recipe for disaster. Yes these teams are amazing, yes I want to be one of them someday, but 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 don’t mean to cheapen the HoF at all, just to make sure that teams are maintaining the moementum I don’t think any teams now wouldn’t demonstrate that they are not sustaining but I do believe that having the requirement on them to sustain would be a good thing. And 20 years from now, if we have to give up 37 slots at Championship because every single HoF team is sustaining, well I will be one happy guy.

#33

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
#34

I think the major concern is how we see the Hall of Fame. We don’t really put any context to it. We think that the teams that started in 1992 or 1998 or 2000 are the exact same team coming into 2010. They aren’t the same team at all. They have the same number, some of the same mentors and maybe a similar winning strategy, but that in no way makes them the same team.

Think of it like this: The Yankees have won 23 world series titles, but Derek Jeter doesn’t have 23 World series rings. He’s a part of the team that has won that many, but thats team history. Therefore it makes perfect sense, that a FIRST team Hall of Fame team be remembered in context of the year they won it in, and not just consider every year after that team has the same caliber as it did years past. (sorry for using a yankees example for all you yankee haters out there.)

Instead of saying “this Hall of Fame winning team, Team 000!” we should stop and pause and remember that it was actually the 1990 Team 000 won that right to be called HoF, so the 2010 is not actually a HoF winning team. It’s History calls it a Hall of Fame team, but itself isn’t.

#35

The point from Jon about fixing something that didnt need fixing was good.
However, as a non-HOF member, we welcome it. If a HOF team is better than a non-HOF team or vice versa, then so be it.

I really dont think that its about ensuring HOF teams continuing what they did to get there.

I’d like to believe that FIRST, in its decision to elect 1 team to win the CCA, did so because they knew year in an year out, they would always be outstanding.

Personally, there is no secret that we have tried for the CA every year since 2006 (only applied once prior and won in 2003 at SVR). But we do the things we do, not because we’re trying to win an award first and foremost,…its because its our team mission and goals.
More effort has been put in recent years only because we have a Hawaii regional and there are over 300+ organized Robotics teams now in the State of Hawaii, us being the first in 1999.

I’d like to think that the respective teams in their area are making the same impact and in doing so, can be recognized for their efforts in their RCA entry.

The field just got tougher and everyone has certainly stepped up their game.
I can think of a few teams off the top of my head from the mainland US that have a crack at it in the next 5 years, and I bet, I’ll be right, with or without this new rule.:smiley:

#36

I assume you mean the field got tougher as a result of this decision… if that’s what you meant then I might disagree.

The field only got tougher IF some of the HOF teams choose to reapply (and that’s assuming they will still have quality entries). I don’t know that it’s a given that any will reapply. Personally (not speaking for my team), I’d rather not compete for the CA again and instead see someone else win it (I’m not assuming that we’d win again if we applied, but if we don’t apply then I know we won’t win, so I figure the odds of someone else winning if we don’t apply are as good as or higher than if we do).

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.

Personally, I just don’t see a problem here that needs fixing, but if there really is a problem, then I agree with a previous suggestion that creating a separate award that only HOF teams can compete for would be a better solution.

#37

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.

#38

Dave,
actually I meant that since the time some of the HOF teams have won, the field now is actually tougher. Hence, I agree with some of your points.
I’d bet that many of the non-HOF teams are doing just as much if not more based on the fact that HOF teams in the past provided a benchmark of success and layed the framework for other teams to follow and exceed.

#39

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.

#40

zero. With the exception of those who no longer exist.