[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

Mon Aug 3 11:05:43 AKDT 2009

2.     
There is no perfect system
So equal exposure like FAI had isn't a perfect system? I think it worked perfect for them.  And it was actually fast as they didn't have too many pilots. 

Chris          

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:01 PM

I want to make 3 points.   

1.     
Seeding is absolutely critical 

2.     
There is no perfect system 

3.     
There are very limited resources and personnel 

Seeding is the key to any worthwhile system.  It is
imperative that pilots are seeded at least thru the top ten.  It will be
rare indeed if somehow that didn’t get the job done.  All this is
about the last couple of pilots making or not making the cut to the
finals.  Favorites or otherwise not making the cut happens in every kind
of competition.  No matter what system we design, there will be those that
feel they were short changed.  

There is no perfect system, whether you choose the old system or
Jerry’s or anyone else’s.  I personally think the system in
place is as good as any.  No matter the system there is an element of good
fortune involved for some and bad fortune for others.   

Increasing the pilot pool in the finals to 12 people is
overbearing.  That becomes 48 flights or more than 8 hours.  The way
it is presently done, that would be about a 12 hour day.  That is absurdly
long and impractical.  If you look at what you have it could be changed to
10 pilots with 3 rounds in the finals and that would that about 5 hours actual
flying time, maybe 6 hours total. About half the time.  Also, 3 judging
panels instead of 4.  One less break.  Less work for everyone.   

From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:06 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements 

This is really the ONLY issue at hand.  Proper seeding
becomes vital to both formats.  In the Matrix system, two
“weaker” (no bashing, just being honest) groups will normalize very
high to one another on the day they fly against each other  knocking out
some of the pilots from the other groups who are forced to always normalize
against one of the stronger pilots (in this years case that was Arch and
Frak).   

The 4 mini contests does a better job with the math (your at
least not trying to force normalization with equal exposure) but in contrast,
the idea of taking the top 2 or 3 from each group assumes that one group
won’t have 4 of the best pilots.  Not the best assumption given the
inconsistent attendance that many have at the nats.  No way to seed beyond
the top 3-4 people that we have experience with. 

In both cases…people have to stay true to the
“Goal”.  Which is really to make sure that the top 3 guys make
the finals.  We’re trying to pick the National Champion, not the 5,6,7
and 8th place guys.   Taking 8 to the finals in EITHER
format does a good job of ensuring that the top 3 are in the finals and have a
fair, well judged event to choose the champion. 

I think any format we choose is likely to err when it comes to the
8,9,10 place individuals.  That would be a problem if we were only taking
3 to the finals.  The idea of taking 8 purposely mitigates that. 

It’s even less of an issue in FAI where 20 fly in a full
exposure format to choose the finalists and they still take 8 to choose the top
guys.   

From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz

Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:57 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements 

Seeding would be very critical in this just like seeding is
critical in the current matrix system as well.  I'll give you a good
example... had Glen Watson showed up wouldn't that have affected some pilots in
his group?  With Glen not being there that group became an
"easy" group and the normalized scores reflected that relative to the
other groups.  I'm not trying to diminish anyone's flying efforts here but
I think the ED should adjust the flying groups based on attendance if necessary
in order to level the playing field for everyone. 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Mark Hunt <flyintexan at att.net> wrote: 

I too would like to see an article on this.  No
offense, but initially it is unclear to me how this would give any better
exposure of pilots to the same judges/conditions than the current matrix system
allows for.  Would seeding not become even more critical in this scenario? 

Mark 

From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 

Sent: Monday, August 3,
2009 11:56:34 AM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements 

Maybe Jerry could detail this in a Kfactor article. Perhaps could be
used at locals to help with an oversized Masters group.

Anthony

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:45:19
-0700

From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in 2010? 

Jerry Budd had a good suggestion in running 4 mini-contests
for 6 rounds where each pilot would fly against their group for 6 straight
rounds and then the top 3 from each group would fly in the finals.  I'm
leaning toward this because the current format does not work.  We also
need to do something about FAI - because there isn't equal exposure there
either. 

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
wrote: 

Every Nats I went to that had all events in 2 weeks ended up
screwing

Pattern out of time or space.  It never failed.  I am against it even

thought I liked to go see other events.  We cannot do a first rate job
when

we compete for runway space and days to fly.

I thought AMA wanted to reduce Nats costs.  Moving them around does not do

that if you look at history and read up you will find a consistent comment

about reducing Nats costs.  NPAC was fully funded by the pilots and it
cost

more than a typical Nats so factor that in.

No one has addressed the equal exposure to judges issues for the current

format yet and Mike's proposal does not correct that situation for Masters.

I had one person suggest to me that if we continue to use the Matrix system

that we take the top 3 pilots from each "Group" to a 3 round finals.
 At

least then we have equal judging exposure and more or less equal weather

exposure per round.

John 

-----Original Message-----

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 

[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Tony

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:56 PM

To: 'General pattern discussion'

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in 2010?

That is a possibility also.  AMA is thinking about returning the NATS to a
2

week all-events NATS like used to be done.  If all events are together, HQ

can put all costs into one effort.  If they are all split up, Each group

would have more costs to deal with due to the fact that HQ can't send a

group of people to every site.

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Taylor

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:39 PM

To: General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in 2010?

It was done, It was called NPAC

Tim

--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:

       From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>

       Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll -
Relocate the Nats in

2010?

       To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

       Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 2:06 PM

       Why not allow the SIGS to do their own thing? IMAC
and NSRCA do not

need to share a site. The LSF can find a site for the soaring NATS. Pylon

knows what venues work for them and so on. FF can do their own thing as

well. Why tie soaring and FF together and so on??

       Tony wrote:

       Matt:

       Yes, it is just difficult to tell if it is actually
feasible.  The

problem is that it requires a large site for Pattern/Pylon/IMAC and will

require another large site for Soaring/Outdoor FF.  It may be very
difficult

to actually find places that can handle this group.

       Tony Stillman, President

       Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA   31525

 1-800-962-7802 

www.radiosouthrc.com
<http://www.radiosouthrc.com/> 

________________________________

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 

<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o

rg> 

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try BingT now.  

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

Checked by
AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 08/03/09
05:57:00 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090803/8b2d1b0d/attachment.html>