NECC competition overview round 3

Importance of Capacity to Discuss Other Options
- The need for presenters to showcase the ability to analyze multiple proposals versus focusing solely on a selected few.
- Acknowledgment that time constraints impacted comprehensive discussions during presentations.

Considerations for Team Continuity
- Discussion on keeping experienced members (like Asika) on the team to benefit from their learning and progress from the previous year.
- Suggesting to replace only graduating members instead of starting anew.
Interest in National Competitions
- Importance of commitment to national competitions without solely focusing on monetary incentives.

Unequal Competitive Advantage
- Noted that schools with established competition connections (e.g., Ivy League schools) may have an implicit advantage.
- Example of NMSU: Noted connections to sponsors that could influence perceptions and outcomes.
Presentation Styles
- Emphasis on the differences in presentation quality and style impacting judges’ decisions.
- Noted successful teams may have effectively connected justifications for their selections.

Reflections on Past Presentations
- Recognition of the strength of analyses presented but acknowledgment of missed opportunities to compare with alternative proposals.
- Realization that discussing competitors' proposals could increase competitiveness in future presentations.
Judges' Flexibility During Presentations
- Judges were forgiving of presentation mishaps if the content quality remained high.

Need for Broader Contextual Discussion
- Suggestion to discuss overall themes and groups rather than just focusing on selected proposals (i.e., grouping social/community impacts).
Disagreement on Competition Structure
- Personal feelings about the necessity of addressing all alternatives while arguing that real-world presentations do not require discussing all options.

Concerns of Competition Fairness
- Discussion around the implications of competing against individuals with potentially far more experience due to age or career advancement.
- Arguments favoring the separation of graduate and undergraduate teams to ensure fair competition.
Personal Anecdote
- Example of a perceived age-gap issue during networking events where younger students may feel overshadowed by more experienced competitors.

Concerns Over Multiple Teams Per University
- Agreement that universities should have limitations on the number of teams to ensure balanced competition.
Observations of Other Teams
- Observations of performance within teams from universities like Notre Dame and Yukon and their overall competitiveness.

Judging Criteria Factors
- Emphasis on the importance of delivery style and engaging all members during the presentation.
- Insight into judges favoring those who presented collaboratively rather than dominantly.

Reflection on Networking and Opportunities
- Recognition of the importance of building relationships within business contexts and leveraging them for future endeavors.
Future Plans
- Individual members' future plans discussed, including prospects of graduate studies and working on university-aligned projects.