Better Mousetrap...

[John Ferrell]

I have never understood the value of the qualify/finals scheme.
It only makes sense when you don't have enough contestants to fill the allocated time.
How about just flying 8 rounds for everyone? Weather problems just reduce the number of rounds.
The only question then would be the number of rounds dropped.

The FAI format could be altered as well, we do a few things different than the international rules already. The FAI contestants seem to be dwindling anyway so it may be that it can be left alone.
 
John Ferrell   
My Competition is not my enemy! 
http://DixieNC.US

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eric Henderson 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:13 AM
  Subject: Better Mousetrap...


  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/20041115/465f9e1d/attachment.html