The first collegiate Sports/Tech hackathon in the United States

A combo hackathon and make-a-thon prototyping event where people come together to build cool stuff.

QuackCon is focusing specifically on the theme of sports/tech and participants will be encouraged to build a hack that focuses on 1) athletic enhancement; and/or, 2) fan/audience engagement.

View full rules

Eligibility

Any student enrolled in an accredited university or college can participate. We will work at providing travel reimbursement for out-of-state participants where possible.

Artists, designers, computer science, product design, business, architecture, journalism, engineers, liberal arts, science majors & more should attend! FREE TO ATTEND!

Requirements

- Opt in for one prize catagorey (Athletic Enhancement or Fan Engagement)
- You must submit your business model and any relavent files.

Judges

Ashton Eaton

Ashton Eaton
Two-time Olympian/World-Record Holder Decathlete; UO alum

Devon Allen

Devon Allen
2016 Olympian/Oregon Wide Receiver NCAA & US Champ 110 hurdles

Dr. Richard Sudek

Dr. Richard Sudek
Executive Director, Institute for Applied Innovation, University of California at Irvine

Jason Wilkins

Jason Wilkins
Design Lead/Mechanical Engineering IDEO

Ellen Schmidt-Devlin

Ellen Schmidt-Devlin
Co-Founder and Director, Sports Product Management, University of Oregon

Dr. Mike Hahn

Dr. Mike Hahn
Director, Bowerman Sports Science Clinic

Dr. Susan Sokolowski

Dr. Susan Sokolowski
Director and Associate Professor, Sports Product Design, University of Oregon

Whitney Wagoner

Whitney Wagoner
Director, Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, University of Oregon

Michael Koehn

Michael Koehn
Serial Entrepreneur; UO alum

Judging Criteria

  • Aesthetic of design
    0:No elements of design. 1:Thrown Together. 2:Superfluous/Cumbersome design. 3:Practical design. 4:Commercially Viable. 5:Innovative design.
  • Execution
    0:Nothing works. 1:Missing core functionality. 2:Missing non-essential functionality. 3:Everything work as stated. 4:Execution meets the experience of the participants. 5:Execution exceeds the level of experience.
  • Originality
    0:Blatant plagiarism. 1:Recreation of preexisting product. 2:Some originality/Heavily influenced by preexisting products. 3:Partially influenced by preexisting products. 4:Original/Uniqueness of product. 5:Revolutionary/Product will further the field.
  • Use of Technology
    0:No use of any technology. 1:Little integration of technology. 2:The technology is important but not necessary for functionality. 3:The technology is central to the product. 4:The technology is innovated to solve the specific problem. 5:‘wow’ factor.
  • Pitch of Product
    0:No presentation. 1:Poor communication of solution to problem. 2:Clear communication of solution. 3:Professional pitch of given prototype with business and PowerPoint. 4:High potential for investment. 5:Judge takes out hard cash and invests on the spot.
  • Diversity of Majors
    0:No participation. 1:Individual project. 2:Singular representation of group. 3:Two types of representation in a group. 4:Three types of representation in a group. 5:Three types of representation in a group + outside perspective .