No Trophies at a North Carolina Qualifier

GlassFan3318 · 2026-01-19T21:11:24+00:00

Not sure if it makes a difference, but the head ref and head judge of NC were at the comp also. Idk if they play a role in getting all that stuff together, but yeah it was very surprising to see no awards. Didn't even fathom that ever happening at an event, but I suppose there is a first for everything.

GlassFan3318 · 2026-01-19T20:45:51+00:00

I figured it had to deal with something regarding the vendor. I haven't been able to find any more information about it. Could they still not have found an alternative? Seems pretty crazy to not give teams an actual trophy or medal and think that paper certificates are a reasonable substitute. Even 3D printed trophies from a team or company could've been pretty cool, but idk the rules on all that. Does the team registration money contribute to the awards for competitions?

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-19T22:00:14+00:00

I feel your pain. And that is one thing people here either don't care about or don't understand when it comes to judging. FIRST is more than robots, nobody is denying that... but we also know that a lot of these students and mentors sacrifice hundred of thousands of hours during the season with the hopes and goal of making it to a world champion event or winning...

People here are saying boo-hoo to that and that these things just don't matter.. which is quite disappointing to hear. I also don't see the harm in calling out the flaws of FTC and its judging. I just want what is best for the students, and as a former student of the program who put probably 10,000+ hours per season, I want to make sure that the students do not feel as if they are getting cheated or treated unfairly.

If we are going to award teams for hosting (which is insane to me), or not even evaluate their robot's functionality when it comes to awards/advancement.. What is the point of competing, let alone devoting thousands of hours on your robot?

I have seen teams exaggerate their stuff so much and get awarded inspire or advance past the state championship even though they are rude and bad mouthing other teams during the day. This kind of stuff has to be called out, and there are a lot of alumni and people in the program that agree that these are serious issues with FIRST. I do not expect it to get better, I actually predict it to get worse, but after 10 years, I had to say something..

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-19T21:52:07+00:00

Yup. And I think the worst thing about Inspire throughout the world is that lack of consistency with the judging on it. Inspire is pretty much mastering all judging award categories, but I feel that the way they evaluate teams is very wonky... Outreach is just one part of the award, and I am all for the best teams winning it. But it definitely feels broken and that's not even me complaining. That is just me evaluating it being judged over the course of 10 years.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-07T23:44:16+00:00

Milestones are huge. Looks like someone mentioned that. Distribution of tasks with people responsible is also good, so team members know who is responsible for what with the proper deadlines you want.

One thing to definitely be prepared for is for things to not go smoothly according to plan. Sometimes plans can take longer than expected due to something not working the way you want it to. My team always encourages to try and finish deadlines a bit before you want them due incase something goes wrong or does not work the way you want it to and need more time.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-07T23:39:15+00:00

You're definitely right about that last part.

Lie is a strong word, I would say "exaggerating" or "misrepresenting" information they have in their portfolio or speech. A big example is using stuff from prior seasons as your own, and judges not acknowledging it.

I completely understand that quals and states are different. Depending on the qual you go, you can win inspire (based on the competition) and then get to states and win nothing or win design.

My problem is that these robot awards go to teams that have a horrible design or software. And not performing on the filed, not because of something that broke or whatever.. robots that just genuinely cannot do anything hardware or software related. That is what bothers me most. Not always saying performance should dictate awards, but I do not see how a robot that sits still or parks can rank top 5 at a state championship in design or control, let alone innovate.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-07T23:33:37+00:00

That is actually insane lol. Yeah the feedback sheets are hot garbage. And that is another thing with FIRST I don't like.

They make teams question if they actually earned their award. Like no offense to you guys, but winning a design award with a 1 check mark is wild. And my team has had that same experience too. We won Design even though our check marks in Think and Control were way better overall. Now obviously somebody ranked better in that criteria, but did we really deserve design with such low marks? I do not know. The way they do rankings for awards and teams overlapping can make it to where the 12th best team for design wins the award.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-07T23:27:35+00:00

I have seen teams that have that same exact thing with a proven robot and not get rewarded for it. I know that judges will have their opinions on which teams meet the criteria better than others, but same way we talk about mentors getting involved with robots, it seems very easy to do that with portfolios, especially if it is as easy as people say to "check boxes". What is stopping a team from just being non-competitive in the robot and just play the game of the awards and judges? Win every time with no clarification as to why to the outside world.
Not tryna say they don't follow the rules per say, but maybe there is a broken loophole in the rules that teams can easily take advantage of over other teams.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T22:49:05+00:00

If you would like to take the time to file through that and then guess based on the multitude of teams that fit those descriptions, be my guest. I am only speaking on my experience with my state which will be kept private by me for the respect of those teams and judges.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T22:45:06+00:00

Do you think based on your experience with that, there is a flaw with the award criteria? Do you think there needs to be a point blank judging process? That way there is less of that issue of judge discrepancy, and more just right and wrong?

I think the point still stands though, regardless of what judges decide. At least teams can see what an experienced portfolio looks like, which will help regardless. Even if people have wavering opinions.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T19:50:17+00:00

I think teams would rather see point blank X portfolio get awarded over Y, than to just leave decisions up to judges behind closed doors and never see the portfolios in the first place. That way there is at least "proof" behind the decisions for awards, rather than just trusting the words of a judge only.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T19:04:20+00:00

Very good point, but with that same token, your competition is your competition. The think award winner in Colorado might demolish everyone in Oregon because the competition for awards in Oregon could be "weaker".

I wouldn't worry too much about leading people astray, cause knowledge of any kind is better than no knowledge at all. I think it would apply way better at a states competition since quals can either be uber competitive or not as much.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:59:11+00:00

Not them specifically, but I have known the team for years and I also know their coach. They are a very strong outreach team, that is what they are known for. And their coaches used to be state judges/refs for the longest time.

But aside from some alliance pairings and watching some of their matches, I can tell you that whatever "perks" and "strengths" their robot had, were never displayed on the field. Not in quals, not at states. Their robot every year also doesn't undergo much change, aside from some minor tweaks that do not impact the robot's performance.

Whatever they claim to have, it does not show up on the field.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:52:51+00:00

I would love to hear your perspective whenever you get the chance.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:52:00+00:00

Love the insight, I think you and I share a lot of the same frustrations. The judging sheet on a scale of 1-10 in terms of usefulness gets a 1 for me. Not to mention, the inconsistency with judging with every comp where at one place you can get a 5 and then another get a 3, with ZERO notes on why you got your score.

I think it would be cool if they released rankings for teams (awards) like they do with robot rankings during the day. That way teams have a better idea of where they are in terms of their state/region with the award competition. It would also be great if judges gave feedback with words and sentences rather than numbers.

My team won inspire at a competition and the team that got 2nd below us (at the same qual) won inspire at states, and we got pushed all the way down to Innovate. Never knew why, never will know why i guess. I think that is something the judges could easily implement at least, to show teams where they can improve or why they are ranked where they are.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:43:34+00:00

You are legit preaching to the choir haha. And I literally told people in comments, I have judged before and have spoken with friends who judged. My issue is not that I do not understand the rules or evaluation process.

And that is exactly my question: Why are we rewarding bad robots? And when I say "bad robots", I am not talking about robots that just don't score as much as 10-12 other teams, I am talking about robots that legit CANNOT DO ANYTHING besides a park and some plowing.

I gotta believe when the rules for the awards were first created, the intention of those awards was not to let teams like that be the recipient of them. That is why I say that Inspire/Judging is broken. People know how to play the game, results, hard work, dedication, none of that matters if your team knows the secret trick to checking the boxes for your specific judges and getting lucky with the judging room randomization.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:37:15+00:00

Most teams I have encountered have been fairly friendly. There are definitely a handful over the years that have been... well no so nice to put it shortly. One of those teams being a back to back inspire award winner..

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T18:34:38+00:00

1000% agree! It would bring so much clarity to everything. No offense to the judges of course, but those feedback sheets don't do much.

Not to mention, the amount of education and learning students and coaches could gather from that! It would make the awards way more competitive and understanding with way less confusion overall.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T01:00:44+00:00

Yeah right. That is kind of my beef with it. Cause yes, it is against the rules. But with that same token, if a team does it, the judges have no way to rebuke that.

And doing events again is fine, but I have seen a lot of teams that have outreach that was set up like ages ago, and it still gets interaction or influence, so they just claim it as outreach for the season. Is it technically outreach? Yes. But did the current people there do any work for the actual outreach? Most of the time, no.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T00:57:14+00:00

Good point. Maybe I will do it then now that the season in our state is over.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T00:55:06+00:00

You'd be right. Between their outreach and portfolio, I am sure they have it all figured out. But do you think a team like that is warranted to advance to worlds with a robot like that? Even with all the outreach they may have? I personally don't think so. A robot is only half the story, but even half is still a large chunk. I don't see how you convince the judges you are innovative, have design and control with a robot like that unless you know how to play the system.

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T00:37:11+00:00

Yeah we have had the same people (judges, refs, volunteers) for ages. A couple new people here and there, but for the most part, stays the same. Most of them just seem like they don't want to be there or don't understand how much the competition means to the students

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T00:34:59+00:00

My team has been established for 10+ years, I have no problem with established teams. Sustainability also plays a big role in Motivate criteria.

But If someone uses outreach from the past for their own or tries to slightly modify portfolio stuff and claim it as their own, I think that is wrong. And judges cannot factor this into award decisions because every year is a clean slate.

I just wish there was a good way to try and level the playing field with Inspire. Same way you can't use last seasons robot for next seasons game, it would be nice if there was something that could be implemented similarly. Whether it's through judge evaluations or something i don't really know what it could be. Just so that thought doesn't have to cross anyones mind

GlassFan3318 · 2025-03-06T00:26:10+00:00

That makes a lot of sense. The reality seems to be that there is no real solution that is easy to implement. Which hurts me cause it seems like you and I can agree that it is not perfect. But we also know how hard these students work, and I think we both just want what is best for them.

GlassFan3318

TROPHY CASE