2019 Nationals Stunt Qualification Rounds Circle Seeding

[Howard Rush]

Here is circle seeding for the 2019 stunt Nats.  I did it using the same seeding formula that was used for previous stunt Nats.  The seeding formula is based on Open, Expert, and Advanced Nats placing for the last 10 years.  US team members not attending the Nats during a world champs year are included, ranked the same as Open Nats winners.  I 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 spreadsheets and critique them.  Here are the top 30 seeds:

1 David Fitzgerald
2 Paul Walker
3 Orestes Hernandez
4 Derek Barry
5 Howard Rush
6 Chris Rud
7 Kaz Minato
8 Joe Gilbert
9 Matt Neumann
10 Kenny Stevens
11 Richard Oliver
12 Doug Moon
13 Brett Buck
14 Robert McDonald
15 William DeMauro
16 Frank McMillan
17 Eric Taylor
18 Bob Hunt
19 Michael Schmitt
20 Chris Cox
21 James Mills
22 Michael McHenry
23 Vincent Bodde
24 Samantha Hines
25 Jerry Haupt
26 Mark McKinney
27 Bill Werwage
28 Gene Martine
29 Ronnie Thompson
30 Joseph Daly

For the top 20 in Open and Advanced 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 2018, 9 for 2017, and so on.  Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5.  Eric Taylor's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example.  I combined the Expert and Advanced placings for 2013 and 2014.

Top score is seeded #1.  Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open in the last ten years are unseeded.  Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.
 
The tabulation program tosses out seeds that are not entered at the current Nats and moves those who are entered up to fill in gaps.  For example, if Dave Fitzgerald doesn't show up for this year’s Nats, the tabulation program will bump everybody else up a notch.

This seeding is only used to distribute contestants among circles for qualifying.  It might make the circles more uniform, but it has little effect on the outcome of the contest.  Seeding is not an indication of one's worth as a person, which is obvious for four cases above.  Here is a crude analysis I did on the effect of Nats qualification rounds seeding: http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/nats-seeding/

Although seeding has little effect--none at all on the top handful of fliers-- using a formula published in advance removes any arbitrariness about circle assignment.

[RC Storick]

I guess my top 20 finish last year didn't count.

[peabody]

Looks Good Howard.....

[frank williams]

Robert, I don't totally understand the results either, never did.  Its a good replacement for the Dick Byron rankings that he used to do.

Howard, is there a copy of your spread sheet?  It really doesn't matter that much as far as seeding goes, more of a personal measurement thing.

[Howard Rush]

This spreadsheet is small enough to attach here. Sorry I didn't notice that.  The tabulation program is too big, so I'll email it upon request.  Here's the seeding program. 

[Tim Wescott]

I guess my top 20 finish last year didn't count.

It got you to 84th place.  Given that you were 18th out of twenty, and the seeding is done over a 10-year history, I find that surprisingly high.

[RC Storick]

It's not worth my time.

[mike londke]

Well I found myself at 110 and have never flown on the Lpad at the Nats. How did that happen? I'm sure I don't belong in there.

[Howard Rush]

Well I found myself at 110 and have never flown on the Lpad at the Nats. How did that happen? I'm sure I don't belong in there.

You were 19th in Advanced last year. 

[Howard Rush]

It's not worth my time.

 

You placed in the range where you get the most benefit from seeding.  Check the plot in http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/nats-seeding/ .  Seeding has no effect on Dave Fitzgerald. 

[Paul Walker]

 

You placed in the range where you get the most benefit from seeding.  Check the plot in http://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/nats-seeding/ .  Seeding has no effect on Dave Fitzgerald.

Isn't he saying he placed in the top 20 at the Nat's and his name is not on the list. Something seems wrong there.

And another who has never flown on the L pad is on the list.
Interesting.

[Howard Rush]

Isn't he saying he placed in the top 20 at the Nat's and his name is not on the list. Something seems wrong there.

Hey, it's your formula.  He's on the list, but not in the first 30.

And another who has never flown on the L pad is on the list.

There's a dilemma as to what to do with somebody listed as having placed, but with a zero score.  It's not much of a dilemma, because there is an infinitesimal consequence. 

[Brett Buck]

Every year, same rending of garments over something that *doesn't make one bit of difference*.

   At random (depending on who shows up), #1 and #100 might wind up in *exactly the same situation*. David flies on Circle 1, so might Mark Scarborough, so I would contend that getting seeded #100 is just as good as getting seeded #1, you fly in the same qualifying group with exactly the same chance at advancing.

   You have to decide who goes in which group *somehow*, and when they were doing it by calibrated eyeball, they got accused of rigging it. It made no effect, but that's what happened. To replace it, there is something that is entirely mathematical, and everybody is *still* bitching about it?

    This is *not* a ranking of who is better than whom, otherwise Billy wouldn't be 27th with me at 13th, and Windy wouldn't be 101st while Sparky is 84th,  and *it is not intended to show you who is the best flier*. It is intended only for the stated purpose, selecting one of the four circles you fly on.

     If someone wants to know how they stack up against the others, show up and fly, that tells you all you need to know.

    Brett

[Paul Walker]

Hey, it's your formula.  He's on the list, but not in the first 30.


Sorry for the confusion. I thought it was the entire list.

Understand completely.



There's a dilemma as to what to do with somebody listed as having placed, but with a zero score.  It's not much of a dilemma, because there is an infinitesimal consequence.

It was based on placing, not score. If there was a zero score, they obviously has put some previous score on the board to get to that point.

[Howard Rush]

I assume that Mike entered, but didn't show up.  I do that in combat, just to fluff up the entry.  One year I won a prize without showing up.  It's not one of my most treasured trophies.  Peculiarly, Mike wasn't even in last place.  I just enter the data. 

[Gary Dowler]

Every year, same rending of garments over something that *doesn't make one bit of difference*.

   At random (depending on who shows up), #1 and #100 might wind up in *exactly the same situation*. David flies on Circle 1, so might Mark Scarborough, so I would contend that getting seeded #100 is just as good as getting seeded #1, you fly in the same qualifying group with exactly the same chance at advancing.

   You have to decide who goes in which group *somehow*, and when they were doing it by calibrated eyeball, they got accused of rigging it. It made no effect, but that's what happened. To replace it, there is something that is entirely mathematical, and everybody is *still* bitching about it?

    This is *not* a ranking of who is better than whom, otherwise Billy wouldn't be 27th with me at 13th, and Windy wouldn't be 101st while Sparky is 84th,  and *it is not intended to show you who is the best flier*. It is intended only for the stated purpose, selecting one of the four circles you fly on.

     If someone wants to know how they stack up against the others, show up and fly, that tells you all you need to know.

    Brett

Well stated.

[Doug Moon]

Every year, same rending of garments over something that *doesn't make one bit of difference*.

   At random (depending on who shows up), #1 and #100 might wind up in *exactly the same situation*. David flies on Circle 1, so might Mark Scarborough, so I would contend that getting seeded #100 is just as good as getting seeded #1, you fly in the same qualifying group with exactly the same chance at advancing.

   You have to decide who goes in which group *somehow*, and when they were doing it by calibrated eyeball, they got accused of rigging it. It made no effect, but that's what happened. To replace it, there is something that is entirely mathematical, and everybody is *still* bitching about it?

    This is *not* a ranking of who is better than whom, otherwise Billy wouldn't be 27th with me at 13th, and Windy wouldn't be 101st while Sparky is 84th,  and *it is not intended to show you who is the best flier*. It is intended only for the stated purpose, selecting one of the four circles you fly on.

     If someone wants to know how they stack up against the others, show up and fly, that tells you all you need to know.

    Brett

What he said..

[Doug Moon]

Thank you for posting this.  I find it interesting and I loved looking back over the years placings side by side. It's fun to see how it shook out over the years like that.

[Dave_Trible]

I just wonder what it might look if not going back so far.  A number of those don't even fly any more and are of no consequence in the seeding.  I know that all shakes out at entry time but such a listing looks funny.  Maybe five years would appear to be more current.  In any event thanks Howard.

Dave

[mike londke]

I assume that Mike entered, but didn't show up.  I do that in combat, just to fluff up the entry.  One year I won a prize without showing up.  It's not one of my most treasured trophies.  Peculiarly, Mike wasn't even in last place.  I just enter the data.

I think I know what may have happened. I won Intermediate last year and was placed in Advanced to fly as is the tradition. I told the ED well ahead of time I would NOT be participating in the Advanced event as it would conflict with Samuel and I flying Combat. Somehow my name stayed on the entry list and even though I got no score I was listed in the seeding.

[Ken Culbertson]

All that really matters is that current actual top 8-12 fliers are evenly distributed so that no one circle has no room at the bottom for upcoming fliers.  Since we don't have an absolute scoring system to rate everybody, like say swimming, we are never going to have a "perfect" way of doing this.  I don't have a "dog in the fight" this year but I think what Howard had done is probably the best of all the bad ways we have of doing it.  No matter how you do it, somebody is going to place 6th in their circle and feel like they got screwed.  The solution is to go home, get better and come back next year and place 4th in your circle.

Ken

[Tim Wescott]

All that really matters is that current actual top 8-12 fliers are evenly distributed so that no one circle has no room at the bottom for upcoming fliers.  Since we don't have an absolute scoring system to rate everybody, like say swimming, we are never going to have a "perfect" way of doing this.  I don't have a "dog in the fight" this year but I think what Howard had done is probably the best of all the bad ways we have of doing it.  No matter how you do it, somebody is going to place 6th in their circle and feel like they got screwed.  The solution is to go home, get better and come back next year and place 4th in your circle.

Ken

If I go to the Nats and miss top 20 by only one spot in qualifying, I'm going to be pretty happy!  My expectation is that I'll hold bottom place in my circle.

[Trostle]

I just wonder what it might look if not going back so far.  A number of those don't even fly any more and are of no consequence in the seeding.  I know that all shakes out at entry time but such a listing looks funny.  Maybe five years would appear to be more current.  In any event thanks Howard.

Dave

There have been several that have expressed concern similar to this.  If someone is seeded and no longer flies, then those who are flying that have a lower seeded position just move up on the list of seeded fliers that are actually attending the contest.  It is the same as if the non flying seeded person was not seeded in the first place.

Keith

[jose modesto]

The only accurate part of the list is one to four
From 5 to 13 you can pick any name on the list for fifth. They are all capable to finish 1 to 5

The time period should be reduced to 2 seasons

Rest of names in a barrel and distributed evenly to the four circles by
random computer selection

All advance flyers compete in a different contest with different judges  they can’t be seeded until they have competed in open

If you take 5 to 12 you seed 3 per circle all others evenly distributed to the four circles
Stop the protection racquet LOL LOL
Jose modesto

[Brett Buck]

The only accurate part of the list is one to four
From 5 to 13 you can pick any name on the list for fifth. They are all capable to finish 1 to 5

The time period should be reduced to 2 seasons

Rest of names in a barrel and distributed evenly to the four circles by
random computer selection

All advance flyers compete in a different contest with different judges  they can’t be seeded until they have competed in open

If you take 5 to 12 you seed 3 per circle all others evenly distributed to the four circles
Stop the protection racquet LOL LOL

   Deciding who goes on which circle is a "protection racket"? The only protection going on here is to try to insulate the organizers from vicious attacks about "getting on the hard circle". If you only go back 2 years, fine with me, and I am sure, fine with Doug and fine Ted. But let one of the chronic whiners end up on the same circle with Brett/Ted/Doug in addition to the previous two year high finishers, and watch the hate mail start flying.

    Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   Deciding who goes on which circle is a "protection racket"? The only protection going on here is to try to insulate the organizers from vicious attacks about "getting on the hard circle". If you only go back 2 years, fine with me, and I am sure, fine with Doug and fine Ted. But let one of the chronic whiners end up on the same circle with Brett/Ted/Doug in addition to the previous two year high finishers, and watch the hate mail start flying.

    Brett

If we know who the chronic whiners are than why not "randomly" put them all on the same circle or, just a thought but what about a bye to the Top 20 for last years finalists and everybody else is a random draw on 3 circles taking the top 5 from each.  1st round bye's are pretty common in sports.

Isn't this supposed to be fun?

ken

[Howard Rush]

All advance flyers compete in a different contest with different judges  they can’t be seeded until they have competed in open

Seeding is probably more important in Advanced because of the wider variation in skill level.  Assuming that nobody with Open seeding points enters Advanced (they don't), Advanced seeding works with Paul's formula as a separate contest.  It's more difficult to avoid having tough and easy circles in Advanced because contestants often don't have a track record for seeding, and because the smaller entry puts fewer guys on each circle.  Using fewer circles helps a lot to the hard-easy circle problem. 

[Howard Rush]

If we know who the chronic whiners are than why not "randomly" put them all on the same circle

1. We know subjectively who they are, but the Nats stunt process introduced when Paul Walker was event director is designed to be purely objective.  I guess you could propose a whine metric that could be put into a formula.

2. They don't fly very well, so putting them on the same circle would reward whining, which philosophically I think stunt shouldn't do. Others may disagree. 

The objective Nats stunt process has done a lot to eliminate whining.  It's really not a problem anymore.

just a thought but what about a bye to the Top 20 for last years finalists...

I think that's a good idea-- for this year.

[RC Storick]

I simply asked a question so if you think I am whining 

[Doug Moon]

If we know who the chronic whiners are than why not "randomly" put them all on the same circle or, just a thought but what about a bye to the Top 20 for last years finalists and everybody else is a random draw on 3 circles taking the top 5 from each.  1st round bye's are pretty common in sports.

Isn't this supposed to be fun?

ken

That is a very cool idea!!!  While a bye to top 20 sounds awesome and all it would be pretty tough for your first flight of the week in front of judges to have to be one of two perfect ones you have to have. (That was a poorly worded sentence.)  It would be a blessing to get there with the bye as you avoid mechanical and or crash options but you have to be on like a light switch to advance to the finals. 

I think this idea should be explored more.

Thank you Ken.

Doug

[Trostle]

(Clip)

Stop the protection racquet LOL LOL

Jose modesto

What is this "protection racket"?

The ones being "protected" are the ones that are either not seeded high or not seeded at all.  The seeding process, in its various forms tried at the Nats over the years, has actually been done to "protect" those lower seeded pilots or unseeded pilots from ending up on a circle where a random draw placed them on a circle loaded with "top five caliber pilots", thus significantly reducing their chance of qualifying.  Yes, for those lower seeds that end up on an "easy circle", the system for them works just fine, but that is not fair to the entire entry.  Being able to qualify should be based on flying ability, not just the luck of a random circle assignment.

Keith

[Howard Rush]

I simply asked a question so if you think I am whining 

The whining problem got remedied before you started coming to the Nats. You had a valid question.

[Brett Buck]

I simply asked a question so if you think I am whining 

  Not you.

    Brett

p.s. In fact you weren't even around before the seeding, and every year, bar none, you could hear someone on each circle complain about "getting on the hard circle". Later, when it was done manually, it was Warren and Shareen "rigging it" to put Flyer X on the hard circle and putting Ted on the easy circle. The same Ted that was going to be #1 or 2 on *any* of the circles. That's why we do it, not for any real importance to the results.