Better Mousetrap...

[Ron Van Putte]

On Nov 15, 2004, at 9:12 AM, John Ferrell wrote:

> 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 biggest problem with developing any scheme is judging.  I doubt 
anyone would want to go back to dedicated judges, who judge all four 
days.  Well, maybe we'd like that, but who wants to be among those 
judges?

If judges only judge a half day, as we are doing now, we have to have a 
system which allows normalization of scores each half day.  I don't 
claim that the matrix system is a panacea, but it does accomplish most 
of what we'd like to do.  It is a compromise which works well if pilots 
are seeded among the four groups.

I thought about the suggestion of using the matrix system and rotating 
the top pilots among the groups.  It does have merit, but would require 
the seeded pilots be on dedicated frequencies.  This is workable, but 
awkward.

>  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.

If we have no more than about 25 F3A pilots, we can run them on one 
site for four days.  Of course, they'd only get four flights.

Ron Van Putte


> ----- 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8796 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041115/4be440e3/attachment.bin