To Matrix or not to Matrix

[Ron Van Putte]

Maybe I'm being dense, but it seems to me that what George describes 
below has either one round of Master/F3A competing in the morning on 
two sites and another round of Master competing in the afternoon or two 
rounds of Master/F3A competing in the morning on two sites and another 
round of Master/F3A competing in the afternoon.  In the first case, you 
can't normalize because all pilots on a site didn't fly in front of the 
same set of judges.  In the second case, the whole day has been used up 
for either Master or F3A and one group has no scores for the day.  Help 
me out here, please.

BTW, the way the matrix system is implemented now, the top eight 
entrants are seeded, based on the previous Nats, and the top four are 
distributed among groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and  the next four are distributed 
among groups 1, 2, 3, 4.

Ron Van Putte

On Nov 13, 2004, at 12:39 PM, George Kennie wrote:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5265 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041113/214e24a9/attachment.bin