[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
krishlan fitzsimmons
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 3 12:50:13 AKDT 2009
I agree Mark. 100%...
I'm a try to win guy normally, but for my 1st and 2nd nats, the finals is good IMO as I haven't paid my dues, and am a nobody. I guess I'm just not used to not being judged equally. Something I will have to get used to if I want to continue to go to the nats.
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, 1:32 PM
I’d argue there are two groups of people that go to the nats.
One group to try and win, the other to see their general placing and enjoy the
social environment of a week playing with toy airplanes.
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 3:53 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
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
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/ec707b92/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list