[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

Mon Aug 3 11:56:47 AKDT 2009

I hate typing typos.  With 12 pilots and 3 rounds that is 36 total flights.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 2:54 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements

Jerry's approach to take the top 3 from each group has the Key Advantage
that the pilots within each group have had equal judging exposure for each
of the 6 flights.  A situation that currently does not exist.  But as
already noted good group seeding is important.

If you change to a 3 round finals you only add 4 total flights to a 12 man
final (46) vs 8 man (32) so time does not become an issue.  

The problem with changing the matrix system is to come up with a system that
uses contestant judges and be able to fly 40 or 50 contestants.  Its HARD,
VERY HARD.  

-----Original Message-----
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 2:00 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

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

	_______________________________________________
	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_Back
ToSchool_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

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

	_______________________________________________
	NSRCA-discussion mailing list
	NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	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