<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I don't fly in D5, however, I think this is a terrible idea unless:</font></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><span style="mso-list: Ignore"><font face="Calibri" size="3">1)</font><span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">the two groups are seeded appropriately based on previous performance (where known), and</font></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><span style="mso-list: Ignore"><font face="Calibri" size="3">2)</font><span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">a mathematically reasonable approach is arrived at to have the top pilots out of each group fly together to determine a winner. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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).</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">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.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Keith</font></p><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Atwood, Mark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">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.</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">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.</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<p><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Derek Koopowitz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 18, 2009 11:56 AM
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters</div></div></span>
<p></p></p></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<p> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">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... ;-)</p>
<div>
<p>On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Atwood, Mark <<a href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com" target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">A slight variant of this was used at the D4 finals a few years back and I actually think it works better.</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">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 9<sup>th</sup> place guy is not likely to move up to 3<sup>rd</sup> with 2 rounds to go. </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">This effectively gave us a “finals” format, and yet every got to fly 6 rounds, and we had a full standing 1-16. </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d">The downside was that someone with 2 flame outs might miss the cut…but again, that’s no different from a finals format.</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<p><b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chris<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 18, 2009 11:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters</span></p></div></div>
<p> </p>
<p>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.<br>
<br>Chris<br><br>mike mueller wrote: </p><pre> Yes Brian we will mix it up as the contest needs warrant. Like the beer deal. Ask Bobby I'd win that one. Mike</pre><pre> </pre><pre>--- On Mon, 5/18/09, brian young <a href="mailto:brian_w_young@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><brian_w_young@yahoo.com></a> wrote:</pre>
<pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt"><pre>From: brian young <a href="mailto:brian_w_young@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><brian_w_young@yahoo.com></a></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the glut in Masters</pre>
<pre>To: "General pattern discussion" <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a></pre><pre>Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 9:58 AM</pre><pre>I</pre>
<pre>think this would be fine. </pre><pre> </pre><pre>Instead of flipping a coin whoever can shotgun a beer</pre><pre>the fastest gets the "trophy."</pre><pre> </pre><pre>One thing that happens when masters judge masters is</pre>
<pre>you lose the judge training, do you go ahead and mix in some</pre><pre>other classes as judges as well?</pre><pre> </pre><pre>Brian</pre><pre> </pre><pre>--- On Mon, 5/18/09, mike mueller</pre><pre><a href="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><mups1953@yahoo.com></a> wrote:</pre>
<pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre>From: mike mueller <a href="mailto:mups1953@yahoo.com" target="_blank"><mups1953@yahoo.com></a></pre><pre>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Northern D5's answer to the</pre><pre>glut in Masters</pre>
<pre>To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></pre><pre>Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 8:55 AM</pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre>After a discussion at our Pattern seminar here on Saturday</pre>
<pre>we have come up with what we think is a workable solution to</pre><pre>this problem.</pre><pre>First we will wait to see how the classes form on the</pre><pre>morning of our contests. If we have bad numbers in that the</pre>
<pre>Masters class dominates the ranks we will then split the</pre><pre>class into 2 groups by picking the names out of a hat. Group</pre><pre>A will judge Group B. This remains the situation throughout</pre><pre>the contest. Since this doesn't give the contests</pre>
<pre>organizers a chance to have 2 sets of awards the trophys</pre><pre>will be awarded by a flip of a coin. So say they announce</pre><pre>the winners of 3rd place both guys come up and flip the</pre><pre>coin. Ideally the awards are not trophy's but paper in</pre>
<pre>which case the award problem is solved.</pre><pre>As far as District points we just add up the numbers for</pre><pre>each group seperatly.</pre><pre>Does anyone see a problem with this? Thanks, Mike Mueller</pre><pre>
</pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre>_______________________________________________</pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</pre><pre><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
<pre>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----</pre><pre> </pre><pre>_______________________________________________</pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</pre><pre><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre><pre> </pre></blockquote><pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</pre><pre><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
<pre> </pre><pre> </pre><pre> </pre>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com/" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00</span></p>
</div></div>
<p><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com/" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00</span></p>
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>