Better Mousetrap...

[Eric Henderson]

Georgie,
                My point of raising a "Soapbox" problem is to get folks to think about possible solutions. You get the highest marks for taking the time and trouble to put up what you thought would be a better system. 

It's OK to hug trees in a storm unless the tree blows down!

The current system in Masters and FAI works but unfortunately does not leave a good feeling with many of the pilots. That good feeling is very important thing to preserve and nurture so that they come back again and again.

In my book there are no "unworthy" finalist pilots. If they get there because they flew better or prepared their equipment better it all counts.

To challenge you more, try this one. Design a system that gives you a winner if you lose the weather and only get one, or two, or three days of flying, with no rain day. I'm not teasing either - That is what we have to do in 2005.

Regards,

Eric.

   
    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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041115/6a61f443/attachment.html