[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

Mon Aug 3 11:52:34 AKDT 2009

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.

Then why does anyone go to the nats. Shouldn't only the top flyers go?  haha

On another note, who fly's morning's next year. LMAO.. lol 

I'm starting to get a laugh out of the nats.. lol

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, 12:28 PM

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.  

  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

  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 

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 

-----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/20090803/9b6bae38/attachment.html>