[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Mon Aug 3 15:45:58 AKDT 2009
Geez! Thanks Ron! I have a whole factor with my name!
Tony
On Aug 3, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Ron Van Putte wrote:
> Every once in a while, you have to use common sense in seeding and
> look beyond last year's finishes. When the unexpected contestant
> arrives, you can be ready. We call that the Frackowiak factor.
>
> Ron VP
>
> On Aug 3, 2009, at 6:29 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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