2011 Nats Stunt Seeding

[Howard Rush]

Bill Rich will use the same seeding and finals-judge selection formulas that Paul Walker used for the last three Stunt Nats, except that seeding this year will include Junior US team members.  The seeding formula is based on Nats placing for the last 10 years. US team members not attending the Nats during the world-champs year are included, ranked the same as Nats winners. I did the calculation this year.  I'll put the seeding into the Nats stunt tabulation program. I'll forward copies of the seeding spreadsheet to anybody who wants it. Likewise, I'll send the tabulation program to anybody who wants it. I encourage everybody to look at these spreadsheeds and critique them.  Here are the top 30 seeds:

1   David   Fitzgerald
2   Orestes   Hernandez
3   Derek   Barry
4   Brett   Buck
5   Matt   Neumann
6   Bill   Rich
7   Paul   Walker
8   Richard   Oliver
9   Howard   Rush
10   Windy   Urtnowski
11   Randy   Smith
12   Frank   McMillan
13   Kenny   Stevens
14   Bill   Werwage
15   Dan   Banjock
16   Terry   Fancher
17   Doug   Moon
18   Ryan   Young
19   Kent   Tysor
20   Josias   Delgado
21   Bud   Wieder
22   Eric   Taylor
23   Paul   Ferrell
24   Masaru   Hiki
25   Alberto   Haber
26   Mike   Palko
27   Enrique   Diez
28   Mike   Schmitt
29   Germanico   Becerril
30   Richard Giacobone

For the top 20 in Open for the last ten years, first place gets 20 points, second place gets 19, and so on. US Team members who were out of town for the WC get 20 points each. Scores get multiplied by 10 for 2010, 9 for 2009, and so on. Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5. Orestes's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example. Top score is seeded #1. Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open are unseeded. Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.

This seeding is only used to distribute contestants among four circles for qualifying.  It might make the circles more uniform, but it has little effect on the outcome of the contest.

Comments on the method should go to Bill Rich, corrections to me.

[Steve Fitton]

If a guy is absent (ie Bill Rich in this case being the event director and not a contestant), do they still get factored into the seeding?

[peabody]

It's all WRONG, I say.....there is a guy that flies BACKWORDS there! How can that be?

[Howard Rush]

If a guy is absent (ie Bill Rich in this case being the event director and not a contestant), do they still get factored into the seeding?

Yup.  It's just like he didn't make the top 20 that year.  His score slides down from the previous year. 

[proparc]

Brother Rich Giacobone not getting any love.

[Howard Rush]

It's all WRONG, I say.....there is a guy that flies BACKWORDS there! How can that be?

I got beat by two of those people yesterday.  One is 79 years old.  It's humiliating.

[Derek Barry]

Thanks Howard!

Derek

[peabody]

Howard....
You are to be commended for the work to attempt to instill fairness into a process that can get pretty ugly...

[john e. holliday]

Howard,  you are to becommended for this work you do.  Glad to see the scores from the past weekend.  I see the kid(Leo M) wupped up on a couple of you youngsters.  Now I have a question.  Once someone flies Open and does not make top twenty or even thirty, can they move back to Advanced?

[Crist Rigotti]

Thank you Howard.  I appreciate your work.

[Derek Barry]

Howard,  you are to becommended for this work you do.  Glad to see the scores from the past weekend.  I see the kid(Leo M) wupped up on a couple of you youngsters.  Now I have a question.  Once someone flies Open and does not make top twenty or even thirty, can they move back to Advanced?

I think the rule is that if you never qualify in the top twenty you can go back or if you have not competed at the nats in 10 years. I could be wrong.......

[Mark Scarborough]

I got beat by two of those people yesterday.  One is 79 years old.  It's humiliating.

Howard, I think a few of us Advanced guys even got the better of you last weekend,, ( we take pleasure in the small things you know?)

[Crist Rigotti]

The only rule that I'm aware of is that the CD can place a pilot where the CD thinks the pilot belongs.  See current AMA rule book page CLA-24 Sections 3 and 4.

[RandySmith]

Bill Rich will use the same seeding and finals-judge selection formulas that Paul Walker used for the last three Stunt Nats, except that seeding this year will include Junior US team members.  The seeding formula is based on Nats placing for the last 10 years. US team members not attending the Nats during the world-champs year are included, ranked the same as Nats winners. I did the calculation this year.  I'll put the seeding into the Nats stunt tabulation program. I'll forward copies of the seeding spreadsheet to anybody who wants it. Likewise, I'll send the tabulation program to anybody who wants it. I encourage everybody to look at these spreadsheeds and critique them.  Here are the top 30 seeds:

1   David   Fitzgerald
2   Orestes   Hernandez
3   Derek   Barry
4   Brett   Buck
5   Matt   Neumann
6   Bill   Rich
7   Paul   Walker
8   Richard   Oliver
9   Howard   Rush
10   Windy   Urtnowski
11   Randy   Smith
12   Frank   McMillan
13   Kenny   Stevens
14   Bill   Werwage
15   Dan   Banjock
16   Terry   Fancher
17   Doug   Moon
18   Ryan   Young
19   Kent   Tysor
20   Josias   Delgado
21   Bud   Wieder
22   Eric   Taylor
23   Paul   Ferrell
24   Masaru   Hiki
25   Alberto   Haber
26   Mike   Palko
27   Enrique   Diez
28   Mike   Schmitt
29   Germanico   Becerril
30   Richard Giacobone

For the top 20 in Open for the last ten years, first place gets 20 points, second place gets 19, and so on. US Team members who were out of town for the WC get 20 points each. Scores get multiplied by 10 for 2010, 9 for 2009, and so on. Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5. Orestes's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example. Top score is seeded #1. Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open are unseeded. Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.

This seeding is only used to distribute contestants among four circles for qualifying.  It might make the circles more uniform, but it has little effect on the outcome of the contest.

Comments on the method should go to Bill Rich, corrections to me.

WHERZIZZ  KAZ  ??   :-)

Randy

[Brett Buck]

Howard....
You are to be commended for the work to attempt to instill fairness into a process that can get pretty ugly...

    Given that you were one of the ringleaders of making it ugly before, high praise indeed.

    Brett

[Derek Barry]

I guess removing people who are not going to fly from the list has no real affect on the seeding? Just thinking that there is no need to seed Bill R., Ted, and I hear Windy will not be there.

Just a question.....

[Derek Barry]

And yes, What about Kaz?

[peabody]

Still off your meds Brett?
My belief is that seeding should be performed in a manner that is pre-set, NOT by a couple of folks in a smoke filled room.

I groused the most about the selection of judges....I feel that they should not be "graded" and those that flunk sent off to judge Advanced.

[Howard Rush]

I guess removing people who are not going to fly from the list has no real affect on the seeding? Just thinking that there is no need to seed Bill R., Ted, and I hear Windy will not be there.

Just a question.....

This is just the upchuck of the formula.  The tabulation program just tosses out seeds that are not entered and moves those who are there up to fill in gaps.  Thus Windy was seeded first at last year's Nats.

[Howard Rush]

And yes, What about Kaz?

He was 10th in 2004, 12th in 2007, and 11th in 2009.  That puts him at 33

[Howard Rush]

I groused the most about the selection of judges....I feel that they should not be "graded" and those that flunk sent off to judge Advanced.

I think the best way to get your druthers here is to demonstrate that the grading formula is statistically bogus.  I suspect that it might be, but I don't know.  It's objective, though

[Brett Buck]

Still off your meds Brett?

   If by that you mean "unwilling to let you get away with the usual bullshit without comment", then yes. 

     Brett

[RC Storick]

   If by that you mean "unwilling to let you get away with the usual bullshit without comment", then yes. 

     Brett

I had to laugh!

[Derek Barry]

This is just the upchuck of the formula.  The tabulation program just tosses out seeds that are not entered and moves those who are there up to fill in gaps.  Thus Windy was seeded first at last year's Nats.

That is what I thought would happen......

Thanks

[Derek Barry]

He was 10th in 2004, 12th in 2007, and 11th in 2009.  That puts him at 33

Ok, makes sense.

[john e. holliday]

Maybe the people that complain the most need to step up and take over running the NATS.  Of course the AMA would have a say in that decision also.  PAMPA is the SIG(special interest group) for CL Aerobatics and the AMA listens to them most of the time.  It is when certain people complain about something at the NATS and then go hide somewhere while the people in charge take the blame.  I have been an assistant and event director for racing plus carrier.  I never put the blame on any one else if there was a problem.  Also contestants didnot get privilage of complaining to my people that helped me.  Had all great people helping me thru the years.   

[Brett Buck]

Maybe the people that complain the most need to step up and take over running the NATS.  Of course the AMA would have a say in that decision also.  PAMPA is the SIG(special interest group) for CL Aerobatics and the AMA listens to them most of the time.  It is when certain people complain about something at the NATS and then go hide somewhere while the people in charge take the blame.

    It has been a lot worse than that. Some of the biggest complainers would have been all too happy to take over the NATs, so that it would come out "right". Somehow they thought that calling Shareen and Warren every name in the book, sending threatening letters, etc., would somehow accomplish that goal. As usual, it backfired and now most of them are pariahs or have thankfully moved on.

    Brett

[John Lindberg]

I remember talking to the head of competition for AMA at the time of all the strife, AMA was aware of the attempt to take over the Nats (because they told him so), and they had no intention of letting that happen. I guess some of the "rebels" went back to watching "Motorcycle Diaries" or some of John Reeds writings, maybe they are renting "Reds" from Blockbuster. 

[Peter Nevai]

Back in 1999 while I was with Motorola, the idea to sponsor some NATS events was tossed around behind closed doors. CLPA was brought up as well, and some research was done to see if the return on investment would be worth it. It was considered a very low risk, and in the terms of the cost of sponsorship was really low compared to say the Motorola Formula 1 team etc, almost petty cash. In exchange some Motorola Banners would be place at the various events etc. Select RC and CLPA pilots would be offered sponsorship (all modeling expenses within reason would be paid) Fuel, travel to contests, engines, materials etc for any competition year would be reimbursed to the sponsored pilots, in exchange for wearing a jacket with the Logo or a logo placed somewhere on the model. Out of the entire advertising and marketing budget the visibility would be good and the cost dirt cheap.

Before these plans were finalized, and people in the AMA and participants were approached. The bottom fell out of the DOT COM boom and then 911 happened. All the above and many other strategies vaporized.

Complain all you want, but think of where you would be now if money ($$$Hard Cash$$$) started to roll into the NATS RC and CLPA. Heck until the economy took a dive corporations were spending a ton more on far less interesting stuff. Imagine that comparitvely having repersentation at a national  or world championship event in RC or CLPA would be less cost than putting a booth in at many trade shows for a week.

So who is wants to be the first here to accept CLPA competition sponsorship and have their hobby fully paid for?

[Derek Barry]

So who is wants to be the first here to accept CLPA competition sponsorship and have their hobby fully paid for?

I will quit my job right now!!!

When do I get the first check?

Derek

[Peter Nevai]

I will quit my job right now!!!

When do I get the first check?

Derek

You do Jest.

Actually the idea was tossed around at the company I currently work for recntly (sponsoring CLPA). If the NATS were still being hosted by the US Navy or other armed service then I would be approaching some of you right now. But as CLPA visibility amongst the armed services has fallen off drastically since they were last flown at US Navy facilities, it's not worth the investment for our DOD Engineering company.

[Derek Barry]

You do Jest.

Actually the idea was tossed around at the company I currently work for recntly (sponsoring CLPA). If the NATS were still being hosted by the US Navy or other armed service then I would be approaching some of you right now. But as CLPA visibility amongst the armed services has fallen off drastically since they were last flown at US Navy facilities, it's not worth the investment for our DOD Engineering company.

Dangit! Could you imagine anything better than flying stunt for a living? I cant!

Derek

[john e. holliday]

If it is like one of our local guys that went NASCAR driving for an owner and part of a team it is a full time job.  He said the first year it was almost 24 hours a day for the 365 days of the year.   Getting to sponsor promotions as well as the practice and being ready for the event.  He said you give up your life for a couple of years until you get better.  He is now a sponsor for a couple of local drivers now.  One will make it to NASCAR if he stays with it.  The other one has too much family to think about it and is getting up in years for a driver.  I like doing things my way too much to be a professional full time controlline stunt pilot.

[Peter Nevai]

If it is like one of our local guys that went NASCAR driving for an owner and part of a team it is a full time job.  He said the first year it was almost 24 hours a day for the 365 days of the year.   Getting to sponsor promotions as well as the practice and being ready for the event.  He said you give up your life for a couple of years until you get better.  He is now a sponsor for a couple of local drivers now.  One will make it to NASCAR if he stays with it.  The other one has too much family to think about it and is getting up in years for a driver.  I like doing things my way too much to be a professional full time controlline stunt pilot.

No No, it would not be full time or professional, You could still carry on a normal life, We were not thinking of demanding that you maintain a rigerous contest schedule. You would have been encouraged to attend larger more visible events but not mandatory. A NATS appearance would have been required though. Obviously greater benefits would be given to those who had the potential of placcing in the to 10 at the NATS, but thats standard for any sponsorship. Obviously in those situations you are not only representing yourself but a company image as well.

Alas as far as the Defense arena is concerrned CLPA in not infront of a sufficent number of the right kind of audience. But perhaps a different market. When you consider it model airplanes still draw attention, and getting attention is the first hurdle of advertising, holding attention is thenext, but these days 30 seconds seems like enough in most cases, so you never know. And appologize for Hijacking this thread, I'll stop now. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Nothing to see here, go on about your business...............

[Howard Rush]

The wife of the guy who builds my airplanes sponsors my trips to the Nats and team trials.

[Mark Scarborough]

Howard, surely she doesnt sponsor the building process, Thats a long term investment right? Does he have to wear her name on his jacket too?

[dirty dan]

Dangit! Could you imagine anything better than flying stunt for a living? I cant!

Derek

While acknowledging the sentiment of above statement I would like to note that I spent a fair bit of time in Russia and got to meet many state-sponsored modelers. Yes, it looks like an attractive deal, especially from afar. But just the politics of such a situation is a huge burden, one that I would not take on.

The realities involved are really quite daunting; careful what you wish for!

Dan

[Derek Barry]

While acknowledging the sentiment of above statement I would like to note that I spent a fair bit of time in Russia and got to meet many state-sponsored modelers. Yes, it looks like an attractive deal, especially from afar. But just the politics of such a situation is a huge burden, one that I would not take on.

The realities involved are really quite daunting; careful what you wish for!

Dan

I am sure it's a doulbe edged sword..........

[Steve Fitton]

While acknowledging the sentiment of above statement I would like to note that I spent a fair bit of time in Russia and got to meet many state-sponsored modelers. Yes, it looks like an attractive deal, especially from afar. But just the politics of such a situation is a huge burden, one that I would not take on.

The realities involved are really quite daunting; careful what you wish for!

Dan

Then again, in the US, displeasing your sponsors might mean they drop you and sponsor somebody else.  Not too bad compared to a trip to the Gulag if you displeased your Soviet sponsors(!)

[Dick Pacini]

Boris Spassky comes to mind.

[EddyR]

The hospital my wife works for offered to buy me a new carbon bike and expenses if I would enter 10 SENIOR events a year and wear there logo clothing.It was very tempting even at 71. Allmost all amature bike racers are sponsored. They didn't care if I came in last. They wanted the inhouse advertising.
EddyR

[Steve Helmick]

I have a bag of grass seed that I could send to the NATS, free. Do you have room in the Prius, Howard? 

[SteveMoon]

Howard: Is there any consideration given to an active competitor who takes a year of two
off to judge? I ask because I judged last year, rather than compete. My program wasn't
going as well as hoped last Spring, so I called Paul and volunteered to judge. Should that
year be removed from my seeding formula? I would hate to think that someone could actually
get penalized (seeding wise) for judging. In my case, it may not make any difference, but there
are plenty of Top 20 flyers whose seeding could be possibly negatively affected if they took
a year off to judge and no adjustments were made.

Steve

[Derek Barry]

Howard: Is there any consideration given to an active competitor who takes a year of two
off to judge? I ask because I judged last year, rather than compete. My program wasn't
going as well as hoped last Spring, so I called Paul and volunteered to judge. Should that
year be removed from my seeding formula? I would hate to think that someone could actually
get penalized (seeding wise) for judging. In my case, it may not make any difference, but there
are plenty of Top 20 flyers whose seeding could be possibly negatively affected if they took
a year off to judge and no adjustments were made.

Steve

Hey Steve, Missing years is just part of the formula. You notice where Paul is seeded, this is because he ran the Nats for three years. It is not really getting penalized, you may just be on circle 3 instead of circle 2. Even a half ass attempt at seeding is good enough. All that seeding does is make sure that Paul, Dave, Brett, Werwage, Doug, Matt, Orestes, and myself are not of the same circle.

Just my .02

Derek