[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
Derek Koopowitz
derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 11:50:32 AKDT 2009
Good points Mike...
I would agree that there isn't a perfect system... but there is a better
system. We should strive to improve the system with the resources that we
have and within the constraints that we are dealt with. Running a 4 round
Masters finals is not possible with 12 pilots. Again, not all the details
have been flushed out but we could even do a cut (just like in golf) so that
if the total of your 1st two rounds of finals is not within n% of 1st place
then you don't continue, or even if you aren't in the top 6 after 2 rounds
you don't advance - you're essentially finished with your finals flying.
There are several different methods of paring down the initial list once the
finals do start - the trick is finding the correct one (or best one).
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
> wrote:
> 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.<http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090803/3421b0ba/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list