I’m all for this change.
On the topic of improving Chairman’s Award quality across the board. If teams haven’t shared their submissions from last season it would be great if they added them to this spreadsheet. The more examples teams have, the better quality submissions we’ll have from everyone.
Great to see fantastic responses on FRC Blog.
Chairmans award
Submitted by Trolinsky Toll on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 17:15.
Ok that doesnt souns good, because winning the chairmans award means that the most reach team will win, that is not ok.
reply
Seriously, why do these idiotic posts get published? It only encourages others with absolutely no regard for spelling things correctly or even thinking about how narrow minded their posts sound.
Can we stop the comments that bad-mouth others from being published? This has happened before as well.
I do like this for the most part. There are regionals that generally have strong Chairman’s competition, but of course only one is selected. This will allow the true top tier teams to compete at Championships, despite their location.
One of the only cons I see with it is that it puts a lot of pressure on the Chairman’s presenters. As a presenter, I feel a lot of pressure and have to put in a good amount of practice during the regional itself. I think it will make harder on the presenters, but will be better for teams and FIRST in general.
This is a great change. One of the more ridiculous things that has been going on with Chairman’s submissions over the past few years has been the jockeying of teams to try and submit at “the right” event. Teams avoid submitting at certain regionals/districts because of the perceived strength of other submitting teams. By allowing teams to submit at multiple events, this issue becomes moot.
Calling other FIRSTers “idiots” isn’t GP.
How do you know that post wasn’t made by an overseas student or mentor who didn’t learn english as a first language?
EDIT: Didn’t notice that the user’s name was “Trolinsky Troll”, but I think some of what I said still stands; Regardless of the username, the comment still seems to voice a real concern.
You mean that it isn’t that already? For some teams, that’s what it is, save that the process is over years and years (or until the team throws in the towel).
Now that this change has happened for the Chairman’s Award, will we see this for the Woodie Flowers Finalist and Dean’s Lists Finalists Awards as well? Having to decide where to submit any award seems outdated all of a sudden.
The username is what prompted my post.
The comment voices a concern Frank already addressed, and is something that has been beaten to death thousands of times in FRC.
You got to pay the Troll Toll :ahh:
This move has me really impressed. If the powers that be are willing to make such a major change to the Chairman’s award (for the better, too) I can only imagine what other rules will change as time goes on.
I have never been on an active Chairmans team (but am now on an HoF team, who’d have expected that?) so I can only imagine the feeling that presenters feel after they don’t win the award. This is a huge positive for FRC, even if only to keep those who truly do work towards the CA for the right reasons inspired and passionate. I sincerely hope that this change leads to the most deserving team being picked, rather than the team that was lucky enough to shop for the right event.
This Frank guy is getting me more and more excited for 2014.
There are pros and cons to this, but I see well more pros. One of the things I like in particular is that Chairman’s Award presentations really put your team in front of the judges, and in that manner increase your chances of winning other awards whether you win Chairman’s or not. Presenting at every event gives you yet another chance to put yourself out there.
One thing I’m leery of is the demand on judges!
Thank you Frank for not being afraid to make big changes when it makes sense and for listening to teams’ plea for change. Many years ago when most teams only go to one regional, it is unfair to them if a small number of teams who go to multiple regionals get multiple chances to present Chairman’s. Now with so many district teams and others going to multiple events, those problems that Frank mentioned came up that was not there before. I am so happy I may not be able to sleep tonight. (Never mind, I don’t need an excuse to stay up and work on robotics team stuff.)
Frank, you will get my vote if you ever run for US president.
I am generally positive about this change.
The only concern I have is that, if I remember correctly, upwards of 25+ teams submitted Chairman’s at the WI Regional two or so years ago, and it seemed really crazy. Judge appointments were booked all day Friday and Saturday before lunch. If every team is submitting at each regional, I can see those numbers going up.
I have faith in the judges. I just would rather not see it go to 2 sets of presentation judges at a regional level if at all possible (just for consistency’s sake), and I’m not sure that will even be necessary. (Yes, I do know that there are many sets of judges at Champs).
More Frank! More Frank!
Something that I would like to see in Chairman’s, or even in EI, though I doubt it will be (come on, Frank, prove me wrong!) is for teams to be officially able to “upvote” another team, especially if the team doing the “upvoting” has already won at that level in that year, or is in the HoF.
Something like: “Team A would like to upvote Team B for Chairman’s. This is because Team B has been caught in the following acts of Chairman’s behavior by Team A members: [short list of why Team A thinks Team B should be the Chairman’s winner].” Throw it in the judges’ stack along with Team B’s submission. Judges can see who the other teams think should win Chairman’s at that event. (At District Championships and Championships, this might be a bit unwieldy unless you trim down the field of potential submitters a bit.)
There may not be an official process for it, but I know of cases where this has happened before. Basically, Team A would express support for Team B during their (Team A’s) own Chairman’s presentation.
As do I. I was just thinking that it might be nice to make it a more official part of judging.
Of course, how much weight the judges actually attach to any such campaigning is probably going to be a judgement call from that group of judges…
Before I comment on the merits of the change, I would first like to applaud a) the demonstrated thought process of pros and cons;
b) the clear communication of changes;
c) the awesomeness that is Frank Merrick.
Ok.
I think this change is good. We make improvements with the robot from our first regional to our second, why not the Chairman’s presentation? I am curious how other “one regional only” awards will be handled in light of this change. (I’m looking at you, Dean’s List and Woodie Flowers awards)
To pick up on something mentioned earlier, one thing that has always seemed odd to me is that even though Chairman’s is the most prestigious award, it comes with a nice blue banner and a bid to the Championship while Engineering Inspiration lacks a blue banner, but comes with a $5000 prize to pay for the automatic bid to the Championship. The market value of a blue banner is $200 (plus shipping). It seems like an odd juxtaposition of prestige and funding.
Here’s the stated reasoning for NASA’s decision to sponsor EI winners (instead of RCA winners). I think it still holds.
Agreed. For all the same reasons as the Chairman’s Award deserves to be considered at all the events that a team attends, so do Woodie Flowers and Dean’s List. There should not be a need to pick where you think you will get the best reception of your team’s nominated candidates. And (as said for RCA) this provides the best opportunity for FIRST to select the most deserving candidates.
I am pleased to see the evolution of the judging process in FRC as the program continues to expand.
I think reiteration is also applicable to the “softer” skills like being about to do the elevator pitch.
There will need to be some adaption to the judging process at the events in terms of spaces and people and how feedback is given, but hey, this isn’t rocket science.
Onwards!