Two Chairmans Winners Per Event

It sounds crazy but what if there were two Chairmans Winners at each Event. It would make it so deserving teams have a chance even against dynastic powerhouse chairmans teams like 1002, 1108, 365, 233, and 79. It is just a thought and has anyone else had this thought?

sounds crazy almost cazy enough to work granted there were two teams prsent who met the standards ofthe chairman’s award

That’s not the point. Re-read the Chairmans criteria.

There can be only one…

While I understand the reasoning behind it, I disagree. Many Chairmans award winners really don’t do much “new” year to year, and are easily toppled (the “winners” syndrome, the idea that you’re still the champion, and you get side-swiped). I know that several teams that win chairmans over and over again don’t do much, or keep touting the same old stuff over and over again, and there just isn’t any real competition to challange them. Then there’s the reason for having multipule winners, so they can try again and again to win the Champs. And once they win the champs, they’ll be removed from the pool at regionals, allowing for another team.

I personally think that there should be One, but I do think that there should be honorable mentions at the regional level.

Honorable mentions would just be too much… I think EI at the regional level is usually thought of as Chairman’s runner-up.

Thats Incorrect, team 25 has recieved the EI award, at a regional the Chairmens was not submitted at

As did 612

I just want to second that by saying other teams have had that happen. I also believe that the honor of the Chairman’s Award is the uniqueness of its presentation - a team that can shine above so many deserving candidates is the winner - and recognizing such a team is the entire point of the award.

Besides, if you add two of Chairman’s, you have to add 2 of other things to be fair…and that would just make the entire process crazy!

Yupp, I’m well aware that there are teams out there that have won EI without submitting a Chairman’s Award. I do believe that there should be 1 chairman’s award winner, BUT, I don’t believe that there is only one deserving of the award. If a team does an exemplary job in their chairman’s presentation and such, however, they should be rewarded with the second highest honor first bestows upon a team (EI) and a trip to Nationals. The problem with my statement before was that this situation has too many variables; one being that some regionals have way more submissions than others (i.e SoCal had 12ish this year).

The Chairman’s Award and Engineering Inspiration award are separate awards with differing criteria. The Engineering Inspiration award is the second highest honor FIRST bestows upon a team, not a runner up to the Chairman’s Award. The difference, however subtle, is important.

This is a very special award and a special honor. I was happy to see regional awards for both Chairman’s and Woodie Flower’s as there are many deserving teams out there.
I disagree with the statement that teams don’t do that much from year to year. A team who is worthy of the Chairman’s award needs to be doing something every year. It is the only way.

I think their should be one winner only, although a Regional Honorable Mention may not be a bad idea.
EI and second place Chairman’s are often confused by students and judges. EI should be more for spreading Engineering Interest rather general community activity or promotion of FIRST. Although there are many overlapping projects that teams create which are difficult to categorize.

Just to address the idea of Chairmans Teams slacking off. I don’t think that most Chairman’s teams sit back and relax. It is just not in their nature.

I can tell you for sure that we doubled everything we do this year and still did not win Chairman’s in Philly. So I don’t think that laziness is the problem. We just had different judges with a different idea of what made a team deserving of the award. Its not easy being a Philly Chairman’s candidate there are just so many good teams!
And finally lets face it when you are seeking the highest honor in any competition, having two winners will not solve the problem. Eventually someone has to feel the sting of disappointment. This is how we learn and improve.

Good luck to all in the off-season!!!

Only one team should win chairmans, but there could be an honorable mention for the teams that were really close. Lets say team A does a good job on there presentation and has done a lot to spread FIRST over the past year. Then team B has a great presentation and didn’t do as much as team A did to spread FIRST. You can add as many teams in the mix as you want for this example, but twos good for now. Both teams are just as deserving of the award, but for some reason the judges choose one over the other. We don’t know what tipped the scale to the team that won. Like OZ_341 said, you might have different judges every year, which makes it harder to win.

An honorable mention would give us an idea of who might of been second, but there really is no second when you are talking about chairmans. Why is there no second? you might ask. Because if you are doing anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to spread FIRST around, you are just as deserving as anyone for the award. Even if all you do during the off season is do one or two presentations for elementary schools or sponsor a LEGO league team, you are doing what really counts, spreading FIRST.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but i think its more about the process not about what do your team or how many ‘numbers’ of things they do in their community to spread the message of FRIST.

A team can do as many things as they want, but doing it every year and adding more to it is the hard part.
There are a lot of teams in FIRST (like to mention the HOF teams), that are all about the process. Members come and leave every year, which makes it harder to keep up with the momentum; but some teams have come up with extraordinary plans which have helped them not only creating a base, but also blossoming on that base.
Connecting back to what this post is about, i think there should only be one chairman award winner. As some people have mentioned before that teams does have an opportunity to win EI, which is fair enough
Also i do recognize the fact that as the FIRST is growing the competition will grow too, which does mean that every team has to work harder than ever before to keep up with their process, which actually can be a great learning experience.

I completely agree!

:o Please excuse me while I get my soap box off of a root of this beautiful oak tree; ah, that’s better. :o

I believe that we should abolish the Regional Chairman’s Award BUT each regional should send as many teams to the Championships based on the entries for the most prestigious award in FIRST award (i.e. Chairman’s Award) as we do for the it’s not all about the robot award (i.e. Regional Winners). We currently advance 3 for the robot and 1 for the Chairman’s to the Championships … how about at least 3 & 3; on the other hand, maybe if only one advances for the Chairman’s then maybe only one should advance for the robot … how about only the alliance captain of the regional winning alliance advances … ohhhhhhhhhhh, this would change the thought process behind high seeded teams hooking up together :smiley:

I like the idea of 105 teams walking around the country telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, “We are one of 3 teams selected at our regional to compete for the Chairman’s Award in Atlanta, the most prestigious award in FIRST.” rather than 35 teams telling their schools, communities, and sponsors, “We won the regional Chairman’s Award; the Chairman’s Award is the most prestigious award in FIRST.” In summary, there should only be one Chairman’s Award that the Chairman of FIRST presents at the Championships and the rest should be called something else.

I realize that my complaining can be seen as purely semantics but my real goal is not semantical at all: To have Chairman’s as competitive and celebrated as the robot competition. Ultimately, Chairman’s efforts from teams are more responsible for supplying America’s workforce with engineers and scientists than building the robot. In the year 2020, hopefully you’ll hear comments like, “What do you mean your team does not compete for Chairman’s; EVERYONE competes for Chairman’s!” Then, in 2050, you’ll hear comments akin to, “Oh, we do not have a robot, we are just here competing for the Chairman’s Award.”

Ed, I’m sorry that I took liberty with your “There can be only one …” statement but it was a great step onto my soap box. Thank you!

Back to the Nutt Ranch,
Lucien

p.s. I still haven’t found any 1/4-20 nuts on the ranch … just a bunch of white jackets with the arms sewn to the pockets. I did have pecan pie for lunch though; maybe it is that kind of nut farm :ahh:.

That is correct. The award is about sustained excellence over time. While it is true that a team should not win for the “amount of stuff” that they do, chances are a team that has been doing this for a long time will have many strong and long lasting projects. Teams should win for proven and sustained efforts which have been improved over time. A large number of short term, high impact projects should not be a basis for winning the Chairman’s Award.

And in response to the recent posts. I actually like the Regional Chairman’s Award as a concept. Too many great programs went unrecognized under the old system. Perhaps some improvements could be made to the process, but having regional winners has made the process more democratic. Before the national award process was “top /down”. Now teams spring up from local grassroots efforts.

I have to agree with many who have already posted. The point of the Chairman’s Award is to award the team who has best allowed the community know about FIRST, and there can’t be two. Sure, there will be multiple teams at a competition who deserve it, but there should only be one winner. What about the National Chairman’s Award? Should all of the teams who have already won win the National award because, yes, they all are deserving teams? I think there should only be one winner at each competition.

There should only be one Chairman’s Award given out per competition. Despite that, I am very much in favor of giving out honorable mentions to team that’s deserve recognition, as is done at the Championship event and at the VCU regional this year.
Engineering Inspiration, while being similar in many regards to Chairman’s Award, IS NOT THE RUNNER-UP CHAIRMAN’S! Even if the judging criteria were exactly the same (which it isn’t), it is open to ALL teams who attend the regional, whether or not they submitted their Chairman’s award there or they are eligible to win Chairman’s (a FIRST HoF or even a rookie team can win EI, but not CA). Engineering Inspiration is about creating excitment about Engineering, Science, and Technology, and hopefully creating an impact in which more students persue careers in those fields. You do not have to be a “role model team” or “build a partnership” or fill several of the other CA recquirments.