Congratulations to Teams 57, 1429, and 1477, the winners at Lone Star. This was fun. We will see you in Atlanta.
Y’all made a great job against team #118.
…Im really impressed
Congratulations to the finalists and to the 2008 regional winners of Lone Star!
Someone is going to have to fill me in on all the fun!
Looks like everything went very well in Katy, Texas!
Again, congratulations all!
We were one of the teams who made it to the Finals in that regional Rookie Team 2582, The PantherBots, and I would just like to say CONGRATULATIONS!! Y’all did awesome. I’m glad that if we had to lose it was to you guys. Y’all worked so great together and Im glad yall won
I would like to thank you guys for all the congratulations. We had awesome alliance members that worked together very well and complimented each other really well to give us the win. See you guys in Atlanta!
We would like to thank team 1477 for having the confidence to pick us in the 1st round. You guys were solid all weekend. Team 57 (thanks Kevin), had an incredible hybrid mode. This gave us a great start to each of our matches.
This has been an dream year with a Chairmans, and now a regional robot win, we can’t wait to go to Atlanta and see what is next.
Lone Star had some of the most competitive rookies this year.
2468 rookie all star
2582 made finals with 118 and rookie inspiration
2583 had a fantastic offensive robot, should have been picked for eliminations
2585 had a solid robot, should have been picked for eliminations
2587 won the website and judges award and made semis
2664 had a great fast robot
How do you mentor 40 teams with a team of 22 students?
We still dont get it.
Where did you get this information from ?
It was our pleasure to pick team Kaos as our first pick and we couldn’t have been more pleased with the results of picking team 57 as well. We thought that we picked the best two sleeper 'bots out there. Our scouts told us who to pick and who would have though that an alliance with robots that seeded 3rd, 14th, and 31st, could beat an alliance with #1 and #2
this goes to show the importance of good scouting. figuring out what teams compliment and fill in the gaps of your strategy are sometimes more important than pure scores. they did the exact same thing at Bayou as well, picking a strong shooter as their 1st pick and a competent lap bot as their 2nd.
I think that yall are confusing us (PantherBots) with Panther Robotics, 2 separate teams, i have no idea how they pulled it off b/c i know we couldnt have done that this year even if we tried, i mean seriously we were still putting finishing touches on our bot 2 hours b4 fed-ex arrived:D
Panther Robotics obtained a 2.5 Million Grant to help setup those 40 teams at the KC Regional , you can see the list of teams sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. They outlined their progress for those teams in the wrap up Chairman’s after the Regional. See the details posted by Richard McClellan of 2158,
I hope 418, 499, 2158, 118, also post their Chairman’s work so all the other teams can grasp the impact on their community.
Yeah, 1108 made this very clear during the discussion at the Chairman’s recap. I did feel bad for their lead spokesperson during the recap, though, after the rigorous badgering they took from a certain mentor/coach from a past winning Chairman’s team. I personally felt someone wasn’t showing any graciousness in losing with the types of questions that were being asked - or more it may not have been with the questions per se, but the way they were asked.
I’m not so sure the Chairman’s recap meeting was originally designed to be a Chairman’s Defense meeting, but that’s what it turned into - I’m not so sure Chairman’s winners will be so willing to come in and present to the group if they are going to be pestered and badgered. Asking questions about how they were as successful as they were in an attempt to gain knowledge is one thing, but asking questions to cause them to defend positions or remarks is completely different.
What is the Chairman’s recap meeting?
The Lone Star regional had the winning chairman’s team give their presentation again, but with an audience of other teams.
This lets the other teams learn what the winners are doing that let them win and get some ideas for things to do with their teams to continue their pursuit of increasing recognition of science and technology in society.
I didn’t attend but I guess the it was in a more open forum format where team could ask questions also.
I think this may be unique to the Lone Star regional, but from the feedback I’ve heard on it, it would be positive to do at other regionals. The only downside is that it requires additional time after the finish of competition and awards so if a winning team was on a non-flexible time line (ie need to make a flight saturday night) this would be tough to add-on.
I agree that it should be at other regionals. Did anyone record it or does anyone have a transcript of the presentation?
Probably the most useful piece of non-documentation you will EVER get regarding the Chairman’s Award in FIRST. It is a meeting after the closing ceremonies involving the Chairman’s Award Judges, the winning Chairman’s team, and other teams who want to learn more about becoming stronger for the Chairman’s Award. The Lone Star Regional started doing this a couple years ago, and it’s basically a way to see what won - where the current bar is set - and discuss what worked, what didn’t, what the judges saw went well, what the judges think need the most work, and so on. It was an open forum for teams to discuss with the Judges anything about the Chairman’s Award, and for them to tell you why they felt the winners were, well, winners.
Lucien Junkin, one of the lead mentors for 118, is the director for the Houston area (I hope I got his title right) and he asked the judges to walk us through the entire judging process from Chairman’s entry all the way through the presentation to after the presentation - what the judges read, what they look at, what they expect you to leave behind (or not), and every aspect of the competition that we were clueless we even needed to consider. I really REALLY appreciated the candor in the meeting, from the judges as well as from the winning team, it was something that will certainly allow the teams who attend to be more competitive in the Chairman’s Award and certainly allow the judges to be more efficient in judging.
Once again, thanks 1108 for attending the meeting. You guys have helped to teach us a lot about winning the Chairman’s Award.
That is a fantastic record of achievement from team 1108. Finding such generous grants for so many teams is surely a chairman’s-worthy task. I’ve had a great deal of respect for team 1108 ever since I came across the team at Lone Star in 2003, and their first regional chairman’s award in 2004.
Why would a team with such an impressive record, though, not choose to submit at their local regional, one that they were instrumental in founding?
They aren’t the only team that doesn’t submit at their “home” regional - the CA winners at KC were a Houston team - from the Galena Park district - 1429, another very worthy choice, at least from what I know their program.
This is less a criticism of the practice than a sincere question.
What makes a team choose one regional over another to submit?
Lucien Junkin serves on the Lone Star planning committee as the lead recruiter for local teams. Lucia Sevcik is, in fact, the director for the Lone Star Regional and the Texas region in general for the moment. They are often confused, what with the similarity of the names, but they have very different roles.
Additionally, the Chairman’s Recap at the Lone Star Regional was the brainchild of the judge coordinator, Kymber Nagar, and the judge advisor, Allan Nagar. Lucien may have been in the room leading the discussion (I wouldn’t know, as I wasn’t present) but I’d like to make sure credit’s given where due.