[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

Mon Aug 3 11:47:34 AKDT 2009

I would like to suggest something.  Go to a semi-finals.  Use the 4
mini-contest format, but only fly 4 total flights (4 rounds per contest).
Take the top 5 from each of the 4 groups and fly a 3-round semi-finals.  As
an option you could even take 6 and fly a 2 round semi.  Then take the top 8
into the finals.  This helps take care of seeding "errors" and unranked
pilots.  

Down side is that those that don't make the semi's are done after 2 days.

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 Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

As someone who's goal this year was to make the FAI Semi Finals, I
understand your point completely.

The problem is that all you're really doing by changing systems is shifting
the accuracy from spots 6,7 & 8 to 11,12 & 13.  Bad seeding will still
result in those positions being a coin toss.  An unknown flyer, or one that
has not been to the Nationals in years, does not usually get "seeded" and
can mess up the whole game (with regard to that 12th spot.not as far as
picking a champion or even the top 6).  

Bottom line, anything but equal exposure will always make the cut-off
positions subject to error.  Equal exposure takes time we usually don't
have.  We lower the cut-off point to ensure that the top fliers in
contention for winning make the finals.  

I'm not really sure what else can be done.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of krishlan
fitzsimmons
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:00 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

My opinion may be a little different, but similar Mark. 
An example, Mike Mueller flew against Tony all week. Flew excellent, but
didn't make the finals. My opinion, he should have. The way our system works
(or doesn't work) caused this IMO. Mike, like myself and many others, spent
a lot on the nats, and if it isn't fair, why go? Well, it's a great time for
sure. And it's great to see all you guys! But we need a system to allow us
to be judged fairly. We would never run this kind of system at a local
contest, so why do we do it at the nats, our most prestigious contest? Could
you see it at a local? Ok, you two guys fly in front of those judges, and
you other 2 guys fly in front of two other judges, and so on. Why did FAI
want equal exposure this year? My guess is because they had less entries,
yes, but because our system doesn't work right, and I'm sure they know it.
Would the outcome have been different if they ran it different? Maybe, maybe
not. But I sure feel the Masters outcome would have been had we had equal
exposure. And if Intermediate, and Advanced would have had a finals, I feel
the outcome may have changed a little. 

We discussed this some at the contest this weekend, and doing Jerry's
system, with taking the top 3 in each group, then flying 3 and keeping the
best 2 rounds would work pretty well, and not much more time. That way, the
top 8 will make the finals regardless of their grouping inconsistencies.
Unless we can get equal exposure like FAI did this year. That is the best
system. Just a thought. 

Where I differ I think in our thoughts Mark, is that I go to try to make the
finals. Then I would be satisfied. 8th place is good to me at the nats right
now. Yes we are trying to pick a national champion. But to some of us lesser
talented flyer's, we are battling for, and proud of 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th.
<http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif> 

In the long run, whatever happens, happens. The point of the whole
discussion is to bring about new and possibly format changing ideas that we
all may find hope in and try those ideas. Change is good sometimes. With the
high amount of intelligence amongst our group, we ought to be able to figure
out a way to do this IMO. 

Chris 

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 11:06 AM

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

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

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

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

  _____  

Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
<http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_Back
ToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1> Try BingT now. 

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.42/2279 - Release Date: 08/03/09
05:57:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090803/9f62237c/attachment.html>