[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Mon Aug 3 15:45:12 AKDT 2009
Actually, I did. But it was in 1978!
Tony
On Aug 3, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
> Key words "Last year" ... You'll notice several of this years
> finalists did not fly (masters) last year. And some that did, were
> no shows.
>
> Seeding needs to take more than last years standings into account
> which makes it more art than science. I'm sure Tony was seeded even
> though he hadn't flown masters at the nats before.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon Aug 03 19:13:06 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
> If seeding was done correctly then you should never have the top 5
> pilots from last year on one line (contest) and vice versa (bottom 5).
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Tim Taylor <timsautopro at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Why must we pick 3 from each line? What happens if you find last
> years top 5 fliers on one line and the bottom 5 in another line?
> Someone's going that shouldn't and some are not that should.
>
> Would it be ok to take those that score in the top 20 (Just a
> number) reguardless of line and there's your finalist. Use the raw
> scores plus the normalized to get the top 20. This way a matrix
> doesn't even matter.
>
> Tim
>
>
> --- 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, 2:06 PM
>
>
>
> 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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=flyintexan@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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anthonyr105@hotmail.com
> > >
>
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com
> >
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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
> <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=johnfuqua@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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
> >
>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
> >
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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 <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wemodels@cox.net
> > > wrote:
>
>
> From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wemodels@cox.net
> > >
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the
> Nats in
> 2010?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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.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.org
> > >
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://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://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list