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

Mon May 18 18:49:40 AKDT 2009

I don't fly in D5, however, I think this is a terrible idea unless:

1)      the two groups are seeded appropriately based on previous
performance (where known), and

2)      a mathematically reasonable approach is arrived at to have the top
pilots out of each group fly together to determine a winner.

Regarding the seeding, imagine if the “hat draw” resulted in all the
strongest pilots in one group and all the weaker pilots in the other group.
This clearly would be unfair.

How about this, Saturday’s rounds would be two groups seeded by previous
performance and then Sunday’s rounds would be the groups rearranged with top
half in group A and bottom half in group B (as was mentioned before). The
second day would be a completely new contest (a finals per se).

The truth is that the bottom group really doesn’t need to fly on Sunday, but
in the spirit of “everyone having a good time” they could still fly.

Keith

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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 9thplace guy is not likely to move up to 3
> rd 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] *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> <brian_w_young at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: brian young <brian_w_young at yahoo.com> <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> <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> <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the
>
> glut in Masters
>
> To: 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
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09
> 07:04:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090519/5c9aa4ce/attachment.html>