To Matrix or not to Matrix

George Kennie geobet at gis.net
Sat Nov 13 09:39:35 AKST 2004


O.K., I'm going to subject my vulnerabilities and expose my
ignorance here, so here goes. I have some thoughts on the Nats
Matrix system for seeding the more accomplished competitors
regarding fairness in the matrix structure.
I am aware of one local competitor who was, in the past, a Nats
competitor and who has now proclaimed his extreme displeasure with
what he perceives as the unfairness of the current Matrix system.His
feelings are significantly strong and have brought about his total
withdrawal from Nats competition.He feels that it is unfair to be
required to fly in a seeded group that may consist of too many top
calibre contenters making it all but impossible to break into the
upper ranks and reaching the finals.
I confess that I am not privvy to the procedure for setting up the
current system, so if I am way off here somebody enlighten me and
set me straight.
Upon reading Eric's article in M.A. regarding same, he also states
that he feels that there must be a better way. It sounds, to me,
like he is suggesting that the winners of each day's outcome would
not be required to compete anymore, during the prelims, until the
finals. I don't think this would be a better solution. This scenario
would allow a situation where a top seeded competitor who just
happens to have a bad contest because of mechanical problems or some
other unforeseen mishap, ends up not making the cut and allowing the
advancement of a less than worthy competitor being thrust into the
finals, unjustifiably so!
I would contend that a properly implemented Matrix system is the
fairer solution.
Along these lines I would propose a system where the finalists from
the previous year are seeded in a revolving application arranged in
such a way that no two rounds see the same group of seeded
competitors duking it out against each other.It could be
accomplished something like this:

The top eight competitors from last year are assigned a number from
one to eight according to their final placement. I don't think you
have to worry about seeding anybody below eighth position as those
individuals in the next level will seek their own status level in
accordance with their performance improvement over the previous
year.

Day One, Site One, would see 1,2,5,&6 competing in the half-group
split (these could be further split between the two judging panels)
and Site 3 would see 3,4,7&8 competing in the other half-group
split. After lunch break and the completion of the first round, the
competitors would switch sites and Site One would now be looking at
3,4,7&8 with Site 3 seeing 1,2,5&6.  Day one goes into the record
books!

Day Two, Site One would see 1,3,4&7 competing in the half-group
split and Site 3 would see 2,5,6&8.  Again, switch sites, and now
Site One would see 2,5,6&8 with Site 3 seeing 1,3,4&7.  Day Two goes
into the record books.

Day Three, Site one would see 2,4,6&8 in the half-group split, with
Site3 seeing 1,3,5&7.  Again, after lunch break, switch sites and
now Site one would be seeing 1,3,5&7 with Site3 now seeing 2,4,6&8.

What I think this accomplishes is that in no two rounds do the
competitors see the exact same individuals to try to overcome in
their quest for superiority. They are not stuck everyday in every
round facing somebody that's going to kill them just by virtue of
the fact that he showed up!This system would insure that,at least
during certain rounds, guys that are not included in the seeding
Matrix would have a chance to maybe win a round (3,4,7&8) and still
would not affect the winning position of the ultimate victor.
Now, once again, I don't even know if the current system is set up
in just this same way, but Erics article got me to thinking and I
had to conclude, from his inferences, that it probably is not. Also,
there is probably some statistical analyst out there who can come up
with a better formula to improve the shuffle mix.
Like I say, somebody set me straight,..........anybody?.....Van
Putte???
Georgie







=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.



More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list