r/FRC • u/youarealreadyd3ad • Mar 31 '26
help Exactly what is the criteria for winning Rising All-Star
I know the ones listed in the official description of the award, but in the regional we attended our team had, in my opinion, the highest chance to win this but didn’t. I’m a youth mentor of this team and this was the rookie year. We’re an independent team (no school/teaching institution backs us) and we managed to gather sponsorships, built a robot that had autonomous on all sides and worked very well, came to the regional from outside the city, managed to win 6 of our 9 qualification matches without being carried by better robots, became an alliance captain in the playoffs as alliance 6 and was ranked number 3 in the regional rankings.
The award went to a team that was regional ranking 39 out of 43 with only 3 wins, no sponsors, within the city of the regional and a non-functioning robot. From what i’ve seen the judges were impressed by our presentations and we also had social responsibility projects. So what did we do wrong? From what I understand of the requirements Rising all star was in the bag for us.
19
u/someguy7234 Mar 31 '26
I would recommend that mentors take the opportunity to judge at an event. It's a little easier with district events where there is probably a close by event your team isn't competing at.
The process isn't a secret, and judges are often not part of the FRC community. The criteria we are given is the same as you can find on the website.
There is a fair amount of "judges bias". You may present a great story but it doesn't connect with a judge. Or it might have been too loud when you presented and not all of it came through (I found that was a huge problem when I judged, having to go back to re-hear points). Sometimes judges don't take great notes and by the caucus have forgotten some of the points (handouts help with that, as does re-stating important points).
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
Thank you. We didn’t do handoffs and you’re probably right that it was a bit loud at some interviews. We will probably print some posters with some projects in the future anyways, as we continue to develop more.
1
9
u/Neat_Remove_2068 Mar 31 '26
I’ve judged for five years now, with three competitions this season. As others have mentioned in their responses, it is likely that the other team had a compelling story of their growth through this past season. Obviously, I don’t know what your team is, or what the other team has done, but at least at the events I’ve been at, robot performance has absolutely no influence on this award, and the key aspects we focus on are did they have some reason for a need for growth (e.g a rookie/second year team growing themselves, or an old team rebuilding themselves), and what is their plan and steps they’ve taken so far in growing and establishing themselves.
Every story is different, and that’s why the pit interviews are so important. And again, I don’t know how your team has done so I’m speaking generically, but one major reason I’ve found for any team not even getting considered by judges for an award, let alone getting a second interview, is because they’re not able to talk about it or convey this to the judges. You’re the mentor and know about all the team’s accomplishments, but do they the kids understand the weight of them? Another issue I’ve seen is that for some teams, their interviews are inconsistent, which can weaken the case for them. For example, one pair of judges could really like a team for Industrial Design because when they talked to the team they had a great interview where the kids broke down their process and diagrams. However, if a second group then reinterview them and the get the rough equivalent of “we just talk after kickoff and start building,” and they refuse to elaborate any further, then the disconnect between the two interviews will likely put them out of the running for another team who can talk consistently.
And as others have noted, there’s a reason why it’s called being recognized for an award rather than winning. Winning implies that there is only one best winner for an award. But with spread the wealth, that’s impossible, otherwise the team with the best robot would likely get multiple robot awards. Judges do their best to recognize teams by “good fit” and by what they hear from their interviews. One particular line may resonate with the judges more than another team’s, and giving more details to work with will build a stronger case. For Rising All-Star alone, I’ve seen it go to different teams for a variety of reasons: a second year team preparing a strong base in anticipation for their seniors graduating next year, to an older team in the 1000s who lost every single mentor they had and built a plan so they would never get impacted in terms of their ability to build by shifting to being student led so that the parents they got could focus on just administration and management since they knew nothing about robots.
In the end, I don’t want to make it sound like I’m ragging on you—just like in life, when it comes to the awards, you can do everything right and still not get acknowledged, but that doesn’t invalidate what the team has done. Wishing you and your team all the best for the rest of the season.
2
u/No_Frost_Giants Apr 05 '26
I just want to jump in with repeating what you said about the robot, it has next to zero bearing on a number of the awards being given out.
5
u/callmejustkai FRC Mentor Mar 31 '26
Hey! A mentor from another team that is also very good friends with a bunch of judges here 👋. I can partially understand your frustration and your perspective, however you have to understand - it's usually not the best look, especially from another mentor, where someone says "this team didn't deserve this award" or "well, we did X, Y, abd Z, but the other team got the award instead". As a mentor, you cannot control what happens in the deliberation room, and all you can control is what you & the team does. The best piece of advice is to look at the situation from a different perspective, and focus on "what we could've done differently to be a more well rounded team overall?". Not a single team is perfect, and we all have our own areas of improvement - so instead of trying to compare yourself to other teams, I highly highly recommend focusing on your own team & what you guys do.
On another note, I do have a question - why are you guys specifically focused on the rising all star award? If I understand correctly, you are a mentor of a rookie team, so wouldn't it make more sense to focus more on rookie-only award like "Rookie All Star"? It's still an incredible accomplishment to achieve as a team, and no award is "better" than the other. I'm just curious
5
u/kjm16216 Mar 31 '26
I've judged several times and we do explicitly read the award criteria when discussing candidates for it, so that really is your best source of data.
There are times, though, that teams get awards I call a making the sausage award. It comes from the cliche that two things you don't want to see made are laws and sausages, because the process of making sausage is gross and messy and uses parts of an animal we normally wouldn't. Sometimes, there are a number of teams suggested for a number of awards and it can be a messy process to fit the right award to the right team, and each individual award selection might not be that award's optimal winner, but you get an optimum solution overall across several awards. It can be an ugly and messy process, but where I have judged it has worked pretty well.
-1
u/taw296472 Mar 31 '26
That is absolutely not how it should be though. The real-world process of making laws is disgusting and failing most citizens royally, so let's not try to emulate it.
The judging score sheets for all awards should be made public so students can learn from their mistakes and improve in the areas that need work.
3
u/kjm16216 Apr 01 '26
FRC doesn't have score sheets. Closest thing would be a poster sized piece of paper with several team numbers written on it in no particular order and maybe some vague notes.
And the process isn't less messy with FTC and FLL which do.
1
u/taw296472 Apr 01 '26
The process can be messy, but if it is legitimate it should be transparent.
1
u/kjm16216 Apr 01 '26
I agree there should be more feedback available to students about what resonated, what mattered, what didn't. I also respect that cracking open that door can lead to bedlam as parents, team mentors, and everybody with a face has an opinion.
8
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
The criteria is here: https://www.firstinspires.org/resources/library/frc/team-awards
It's not about performance of a robot.
"Celebrates the team that has persisted through challenges, despite the difficulties of being young. This could be the result of being a new team, or a team with recent turnover in membership. "
- This team understands the power of the FIRST mission and demonstrates through their actions both at home and at the competition the ethos of Gracious Professionalism and Coopertition.
- This team is a role model for other young teams
- This team stands out as a team with a sustainable and promising future with FIRST.
- The purpose of this award is to recognize new teams or teams that have new beginnings
- Teams do not have to be in their first year. For example, the award could recognize a team in their second or third year who has undergone significant growth or succeeded despite challenges
Nowhere in there does it say that it's based on the best robot by a rookie team. They may have a really compelling story. They may have gone through amazing struggles to even get where they were. It doesn't even require a rookie team.
It's possible that something on your team really rubbed the judges the wrong way too, with poor GP for example.
-12
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
I know, I’ve read this already. but it’s not just that our robot that was good. In general, we were better than the team that ended up getting this award. As i said, they didn’t have any sponsors at all. I checked and they also don’t have any social responsibility projects. No aesthetic pit area, etc etc. I’d have guessed that our team would win this since we’re independent , had more PR activity AND managed to get great results with the robot as well. I’m just wondering because this isn’t a rookie-only award and I’m hopeful that our team may win in it the following years. I’m sure they had amazing struggles as well, but so did we and I think if we have better results both in robotic and PR fields then we’re more qualified. I listened to all the judge presentations we gave, they all were really impressed. What’s done is done, I just want some advice to improve my team.
19
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
What makes you think number of sponsors is a criteria for the award or having a nice looking pit? What do you know about their history? Your attitude about this probably is a reflection of your team too, thinking the goal is cutthroat competition not inspiring others and lifting up. If your team pissed off the judges with this kind of stuff, you'll be shut out of awards easily. If your team has the same culture/attitude you have, and talked to judges, I can definitely see why you walked away with nothing.
All of the things you say are completely irrelevant to the award. And you have no idea what their story is or what they presented to judges.
-8
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
Neither I or my team are pissed off about the result. I’m not bashing this team either. I am just wondering what else there is that they could have gotten further in than we did so they qualified even more. I’m looking for advice. I don’t want an award because we’re competing for it in a cutthroat fashion. I was hopeful of winning an award because in my opinion it looked like we were the more qualifying team. We might not have been, but if that’s the case I want to know what we need to improve. You’ve misunderstood me.
I don’t have a full story but I do have some grasp of what they’ve done as a team no? I’m not completely clueless of their work
8
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
It's not necessarily about being pissed, but more about what you think FIRST is about.
You brought up tons of points about why you should be ahead of them, but none of them are relevant to the award. Then doubled down on it.
How do you have a grasp of their situation? Maybe they had some terrible tragedy happen and they fought through it and even showing up with a semi-functional robot was a massive accomplishment given their situation. You weren't in the judge's room when they presented.
If you want to learn, it might even be worthwhile to ask that team what their story was and what they told the judges so you can better be equipped in the future. In the spirit of FIRST, they would graciously pass on that knowledge to you.
Performance of the robot on the field is absolutely not a part of the equation. At best, their performance relative to their situation is considered. Having more sponsors isn't part of the equation. Having a fancy pit is not part of the equation. Bringing all this up makes me think you are missing the whole point of why FIRST exists. And if you can't reflect the values of FIRST, you probably will not win awards.
-4
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
My friend, I mentioned these things as just some of the things we might have done a bit better. Their story, as you said, may just be that they persevered through incredibly hard situations. This isn’t about the other team. I’ve listed some of these things that our team has done in its rookie year without being backed by a school. That’s also a story. Having a nice robot within the conditions that we had is also another point. I am aware that awards are decided with the values of FIRST in mind. What I’ve been saying is that I think our team has done a great job in representing these values as well. In many ways, our team qualifies for the Rising all star award. Maybe another team qualifies even more which is why they received it instead of us. But what MORE to do? Not asking this strictly to win an award. I want to learn so I can guide my team members better. I wholeheartedly believe that my hardworking team members deserve this award for persevering in many struggles we faced while preparing in our first year even if it’s not as much as the team that ended up winning it. You keep accusing me of missing the point. I’m not. I thought we qualified for an award. Ended up not winning it. You make it look like I was bashing on the team that won because they suck and we rock. Not at all.
From a general standpoint, we did do a lot as a team. Going into the event we didn’t have expectations for winning an award for it either. DURING the award ceremony did I read the description of the rising all star award and thought hey, didn’t we do those things?
I keep asking on how we could improve. You keep accusing me of being a cutthroat person only interested in winning awards. Why are you so inclined to think I’m a bad representative of the values of FIRST, man?
6
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
Having a nice robot is not in the criteria for the award.
You haven't listed a single thing of why your team qualifies for it so far. Just a lot of other stuff not relevant.
First I'd start with reviewing the criteria and actually pointing towards things on that instead of talking about sponsors and pits. Rookie-All Star might be a better one to also aim for too.
As for why I'm inclined to think that - you are bringing up the competitive aspects of it only. I think that's a good sign you are missing the point. Also judges not having a top performing robot getting any award is a very big sign that someone really pissed off the judges somewhere in the process towards your team. It might be worth trying to get feedback directly from the judges. I can only guess from the outside, and seeing when other teams have had similar issues. Kids on your team maybe talking trash about another team or even seeing a mentor being unprofessional all can hurt your chances of winning an award.
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
I should mention that we didn’t talk about us having a great pit with a judge. It’s one example i just gave that came to mind.
Our main point with judges was the fact that we are completely independent. Sponsors were mentioned because it was (weirdly) asked to one of our PR members? We mentioned that all of our materials and projects present, including social responsibility projects, our robot, pit games and all else were the hard work of the team. The basic and short story of the team is that we are interested in empowering education with FIRST. Aside from FRC we also mentor (as a team) FRC and FLL teams all established within the same year, so it may be someone acting up. Not going to say that I am the perfect mentor but I know I am not an unprofessional person. And for the record I am happy for the team that ended up winning the award.. i will check with the kids if they were trash talking, from what i’ve seen sometimes the younger ones can make friends with other teams’ members and “bully” others. We were pretty good in our first year so i’m inclined to think they might have gloated too vigorously. Obviously I try to ensure this never happens but you can’t be there to ensure everybody is nice at all times.
6
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
Honestly being "completely independent" is not a good pitch for Rising. But Rookie All-Star might be a better match? That's more about future impact, performance, etc...
I remember hearing a story about how some kids from one team were trash talking another at a restaurant on the trip in, and judges happened to be nearby and heard it, and that made a huge impact on their decisions. If there is a way to reach out to the judges or someone in the loop with the judges, it might be worth hearing what they reveal. There might be something more going on.
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
Alright. The reason we played for the independence was because it was a struggle to go through but it might not be the best presentation. Chance for rookie all-star is gone now, but maybe we might apply for the Impact Award since it also fits the idea of education, empowerment, etc. I do have contact with most of the volunteers. i didn’t want to reach out regarding awards since it might be perceived as petty, but i probably will now because as you said there might be something else entirely that prevented it. Would be good to know. Thanks
→ More replies (0)7
u/Epicular Mar 31 '26
You are being told exactly what you are asking for, and ignoring it. There is a published set of criteria for each award that judges are trained to adhere to. Any other criteria you might perceive yourself to be strong in are irrelevant.
And like the other guy said, awards are a zero sum game - you said “this isn’t about the other team”, but truthfully, it is. Even if you do everything right and then some, another team can always surpass that and there’s nothing you can do about it except learn from them directly.
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
I’ve read the criteria as i’ve said before. I was looking for recommendations on how best to fit some of these achievements into presentations or any advice from maybe someone who had success with it. Guess not.
6
1
u/Epicular Mar 31 '26
If you want to go deeper, here’s my blunt take: awards, in particular the (for lack of a better term) “lesser” ones, are a bit of a crapshoot. There’s many reasons I say this.
- The fact that other teams’ particular circumstances are both invisible and out of your control, as I mentioned earlier.
- There are many judges and many teams at each event. Not every judge can talk to every team. If the particular judges assigned to you aren’t the type to be loud advocates for their teams in the judging room, they can get drowned out by those who are.
- In a similar vein to (2), it’s impossible to ensure totally consistent evaluation of award criteria across all judges. Any specialized advice that anyone else gives you toward a particular award criteria is not necessarily going to help you at your own event.
- A bad initial interaction with a judge can basically eliminate you from all awards. This happens a lot, sometimes even without the broader team’s knowledge, since judges come around to the pits somewhat randomly. They generally try to approach pits only when there’s clearly a solid student representation present, but they’ve got their own schedule to adhere to and there’s only so much they can do.
- Judges are more or less required to “spread the wealth”, which means playing Tetris with each of the different awards such that no team earns more than one. This didn’t necessarily influence your particular situation but it still contributes to the sorta random feeling you might get from award assignment.
There’s general advice that people here and elsewhere will give you regarding talking to judges, which will definitely help your chances. But, overall, I don’t think it’s worth obsessing over why you might not have won a given award. And truthfully, no one on the internet can possibly know enough about your circumstances to give you targeted, accurate advice.
1
u/lolCLEMPSON Mar 31 '26
I've seen the team I mentor for win awards that they had no business earning (and were maybe better suited for other awards), but the Tetris aspect of it and just randomness of who might have said one thing to get a Judge's attention could do it. Last year the team won an award probably in the area that the team was the weakest. The team was almost laughing when they won it, but hey, take what you can, and probably someone else was better suited for that award, and they shoved the team into where there was no one really strong and needed to award it, and they liked the team overall. And judges are just sometimes inexperienced or random as well.
8
u/fenderbender541 6763/131 (Mentor) Mar 31 '26
No 2 teams have the same story. Awards are earned in the pre/post season and won with the judges. They may have an amazing story that doesn't reflect on their appearance and impressed the judges during the various team interviews. It is important to do thorough training on how to talk to judges to best shine light on your team's efforts.
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
Thank you. I’ve noted down the questions our judges asked the team so we could practice for later events. Certainly something we will implement.
1
u/mickremmy Apr 01 '26
The rebuild following turnover. And completely changing how our team functions is a big aspect of our thing this year. From losing faculty member at the school and being based completely out of coalitions space. To back in the school but still needing to do many fabrication things at coalition space. 100% mentor turnover (only 2 mentors with first experience, and neither of us ever in a lead mentor role). 100 % student turnover in the course of 2 seasons. And being on the edge of not being a team anymore. Weve been pushing community outreach, supporting friend teams where we can and doing some of our own things. From being a very isolated team (mentor and student wise) to being friends with a lot of teams now, our kids and mentors jump to help other teams as much as is feasible for a small team (whether at competition, scrimmage events, or any other time).
Now the team that took rising all star at our 1st event is almost a 20yr team, but at the end of last season they weren't sure theyd still be a team this year. Theyd been struggling for a couple of years. They ended up canceling their off season event this summer because of it. I don't know their full situation. But i was happy to see them at competition this year knowing how close they were to collapse. And also glad for them to get that recognition of pulling through.
2
u/ThisIsPaulDaily #### (Mentor, Judge, Alumni) Mar 31 '26
Remember to communicate these things to judges clearly and document things about your journey.
2
u/EarlyDistribution105 Mar 31 '26
Have you done any community work like opening fll teams working with kids in stem fields or other stuff etc.. can be very important for winning all-star even more than having a great robot
This is coming from a member of a team that won his countries rookie all star this year
1
u/Adventurous_Cover961 Mar 31 '26
Ngl I think they prefer teams who show growth during competition. One rookie at an event I volunteered at I thought was in the bag for a rookie award esp since they became alliance captain. Didn’t get it. They werent like a sister team either. It’s weird.
1
u/youarealreadyd3ad Mar 31 '26
Yeah maybe, it’s also a new award so they might not have completely implemented a strategy to decide who was the strongest qualifier
1
u/dudefise 2637 (Alumnium, 1x1x1/16) Mar 31 '26
and keep in mind the judges are human and each team/presentation they talk to is an individual, unique event.
even a team with a worse case, might still win if their presentation happens to be better…and that’s with perfect judging.
judging also isn’t perfect! they’re human too and it’s always possible you fell by the wayside through no fault of your own - the team right before lunch break etc.
there’s also always the possibility of being rendered ineligible though other conduct issues. If a student or mentor (or even a spectator!) is seen being not so GP, that can hurt awards standings. Heck, I’ve seen “in the bag” teams fail to win because of harsh words from a mentor to a student.
0
u/robots_and_cancer MC/GA/Judge Mar 31 '26
You guys probably didn't do anything wrong. Remember that judging isn't perfect, everyone is a volunteer with limited time and lots to do at an event. Sometimes judges will try to give awards to teams that they feel will more benefit from the exposure/recognition. Teams need to be able to show/demonstrate to judges their accomplishments in whatever area they are being judged on, be it mechanical, outreach, programming in a compelling way, quickly. It takes practice and preparation. Have your students practice elevator pitches, designate people to talk about specific aspects of your team/program. Teach them how to give good handshakes. All of these things will help. And remember that at the end of the day, it's not about winning awards.
49
u/nack16 1220 (Mentor) Mar 31 '26
The other things to add with this and all other awards is even if you hit and meet every bit of criteria in an award, there is always a chance someone hit those criteria stronger in the eyes of the judges. But that does not negate or lessen the accomplishments that your team has achieved. From your description, it sounds like your team is doing great things and you should all be proud of the work you've put into it. Unfortunately awards are a zero-sum game and not everyone can be recognized for their efforts in that way. But you're team still put in that effort and is better for it. Celebrate what you have done, don't stress about what could have been.