[NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters

Mon May 18 07:59:07 AKDT 2009

Well... we took the top 3 of 4 as you would for 4 rounds to determine the top half of each group.  If we'd had a tie, we would have taken 9 to the top group and 7 in the bottom group.

This isn't meant to be "ideal"...just a solution for local contest management that determines a reasonably accurate top 3 outcome, allows everyone to fly every round, and mitigates the challenges of some of the judging.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:56 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters

A 9th place guy may move up to 1st if he had flamed out his 1st 2 rounds and those could be considered throw-aways... and then wins the other 2 rounds - and could conceivably win the final 2 rounds if he is normally a top 3 pilot.  One needs to be careful about this... ;-)
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>> wrote:

A slight variant of this was used at the D4 finals a few years back and I actually think it works better.

We have Group A and Group B as Mike suggests.  For the first 4 rounds, they flew independently, judging each other.  For the last two rounds, we rearranged the groups so that Group A was the top half from each group, and group B was the bottom half.  That meant that the winners were coming out of group A, but lets face it, in a group of 16 (which is what we had) the 9th place guy is not likely to move up to 3rd with 2 rounds to go.

This effectively gave us a "finals" format, and yet every got to fly 6 rounds, and we had a full standing 1-16.

The downside was that someone with 2 flame outs might miss the cut...but again, that's no different from a finals format.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:25 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters

Why not just normalize the two groups together after the last round.  It would be like each round would have 2 with 1000's just like they tied and crunch it all together and see.  You can't use raw scores as that would defeat the normalizaion process and favor the line with the possibly "easier" judges.  In the end you have a complete Masters result as one class.  Perfectly fair, no but seems like a workable solution without the need for 2 sets of awards that you may or may not need depending on the turnout that day.

Chris

mike mueller wrote:

 Yes Brian we will mix it up as the contest needs warrant. Like the beer deal. Ask Bobby I'd win that one. Mike

--- On Mon, 5/18/09, brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com><mailto:brian_w_young at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com><mailto:brian_w_young at yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters

To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 9:58 AM

I

think this would be fine.

Instead of flipping a coin whoever can shotgun a beer

the fastest gets the "trophy."

One thing that happens when masters judge masters is

you lose the judge training, do you go ahead and mix in some

other classes as judges as well?

Brian

--- On Mon, 5/18/09, mike mueller

<mups1953 at yahoo.com><mailto:mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com><mailto:mups1953 at yahoo.com>

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the

glut in Masters

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 8:55 AM

After a discussion at our Pattern seminar here on Saturday

we have come up with what we think is a workable solution to

this problem.

First we will wait to see how the classes form on the

morning of our contests. If we have bad numbers in that the

Masters class dominates the ranks we will then split the

class into 2 groups by picking the names out of a hat. Group

A will judge Group B. This remains the situation throughout

the contest. Since this doesn't give the contests

organizers a chance to have 2 sets of awards the trophys

will be awarded by a flip of a coin. So say they announce

the winners of 3rd place both guys come up and flip the

coin. Ideally the awards are not trophy's but paper in

which case the award problem is solved.

As far as District points we just add up the numbers for

each group seperatly.

Does anyone see a problem with this? Thanks, Mike Mueller

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

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

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090518/cc579ed4/attachment.html>