Mechanics of Integrating Expert into the Nats

[Howard Rush]

Here is some analysis on how to integrate a new Expert class into the Nats.  I shall attempt to write this straight, reserving snotty or assholistic comments to answer any responses I feel warrant them.   I first want to discuss requirements, which would be the same whether the Nats process is done by hand or by machine. This post is in two parts (so far).

Assumptions:
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now.
2. Up to 20 Open contestants will fly a semifinals to select five contestants for the finals.
3. Up to a total of 20 Expert and Advanced contestants will fly a finals to determine placings.
4. Contestants in each event will be divided into two or four groups for qualification rounds.  
5. For a given event, an equal number of contestants will be selected to advance from each qualification group.
6. For a given event, the difference in number of contestants in each qualification circle will not exceed one.  
7. Ties will be handled per the present program.

This year we had too few Advanced contestants to have a meaningful qualification.  This wasn't a big deal, but to let it get worse would be at least judge abuse, plus a waste of time and money.  Next year we don't know how many contestants to expect in any of the three events.  I propose we (or you) have a variable number, based on entry, with the criteria published several months in advance.  Here is what I recommend for Open-- or more generally, for any event split among four circles selecting five from each circle to advance to the next level.  I added a requirement that at least one person be eliminated from each qualification circle. I used Brett's criterion of taking approximately 75% to the next level when entry is less than 24, while still eliminating at least one person per circle.  The table below shows the outcome:

[RandySmith]

Hi Howard

Can we also assume, and include the format below?  The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping

Assumptions:
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now, per PAMPA directive
2. 20 Open contestants will fly a semifinals to select five contestants for the finals.
3. Up to a total of 10 Expert and 10 Advanced contestants will fly a finals to determine placings.
4. Contestants in each event will be divided into two ,or four groups for qualification rounds.
5. For a given event, an equal number of contestants will be selected to advance from each qualification group.
6. For a given event, the difference in number of contestants in each qualification circle will not exceed one.
7. Ties will be handled per the present program.
8. Seeding will apply using the program we now use, If the pilot does not meet the criteria and warrants seeding the E.D. will handle those pilots
Randy

[Howard Rush]

The proposal that the PAMPA EC accepted mentions adding Expert to the two qualifying circles we use for Advanced, and picking ten Advanced contestants and ten Expert contestants for the finals.   The current process is to use four circles, each of which has a quarter of the Open contestants and a quarter of the Advanced contestants.  In keeping with the spirit of this proposal, but generalizing it to contend with any entry level, we probably should consider a process to pick approximately 40 people to fly Friday that accommodates any combination of event entries.  For example, if we get 20 Open entries, 30 Expert entries, and 10 Advanced entries, it would be silly to take 20 Open, 10 Advanced, and 10 Expert fliers to the finals.  I think it might be OK to simplify it to the following:

1. Spread Open over four circles.  Use the table above to pick the number of semifinalists.

2A. Spread Advanced between two circles, using the table below to pick the number of finalists.
      Spread Expert between two circles, using the table below to pick the number of finalists.

                                                        OR

2B. Spread both Advanced and Expert over four circles, using the table above to pick the number of finalists, advancing a maximum of three from each circle for the greater attended of the two events and two from each circle for the lesser attended of the two events.  This gives the requisite total of 20 without taking 2.5 for each event from each circle.  

Using four circles for an event has the advantages of minimizing weather and judging variation, but has the seeding and quantization problems Brett mentioned.  I'll show some charts illustrating the difference in fraction of contestants among circles making the finals for different scenarios.  For example, if 15 guys fly Advanced on four circles, and 2 guys from each circle go to the finals, that's 2/3 of those on the 3-person circle and 1/2 of those on the 4-person circles, a difference of 17%.  Behold that half the two-circle cases have the same number of guys on each circle, but only 1/4 the four-circle cases do.

[Ted Fancher]

Hi Howard

Can we also assume, and include the format below?  The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping

(Clip)
Howard and Randy,

This may not be the appropriate place to mention this but the following occurred to me after reviewing the longer thread that precipitated this one.  It has to do with predicting with any realistic hope of success what the spread of entries in classes  is apt to be and whether that will effect any program utilized to handle the processes involved..

The tenor of comments supporting the change implies that it is expected that some of the fliers now electing to fly Advanced but with skills commensurate with Expert Level scores will move from Advanced to Expert thus freeing the Advanced group of people who have previously felt Open was too competitive—or should be the province of “Masters”.  We had 21 Advanced entries who flew this year all of whom I watched fly and about 1/3 of whom I thought exhibited higher than “normal”  expertise for Advanced.  If seven of the 21 opt to fly Expert that will leave a possible 14 Advanced entries.

The corollary expectation in Open seems to be that some percentage will opt to “step down” from the Open Category to find relief from the “usual suspects”.  This year we had something like 45 who flew Open.  A drop of 1/3 from that would leave 30 Open contestants; a better outlook than for Advanced whose projected numbers would be approaching “modest”.

Using the same assumptions, the expert event, on the other hand would pick up 15 from Expert and seven from Advanced plus the 25 to 30 that Randy has determined will be new attendees attracted by the Expert Class.
 
 The result would be something on the order of: Advanced, 14 entries, Open, 30 entries, Expert, somewhere between 47 and 52 entries.  The grand total would be somewhere between 91 and 96 entries.  A substantial increase but not particularly well balanced.  It might be worth considering the potential for such disparate numbers into your discussion of formatting and the necessary digital doodling to make it all work smoothly.

Ted

[Howard Rush]

, per PAMPA directive

This is unnecessary.  Stop selling and pay attention.

Can we also...?  

No.  You cannot both have a fixed and variable number of Open semifinalists.

8. Seeding will apply using the program we now use, If the pilot does not meet the criteria and warrants seeding the E.D. will handle those pilots

The seeding program will have to be modified for Expert.  I mentioned Expert seeding weighting as an example of omitted detail and have seen no suggestions.

What do you mean, "does not meet the criteria"?

Arbitrary seeding is a bad idea.  One of the conditions I made when I wrote the program you guys think is so trivial is that everything be open and objective.  I wanted this because any whiff of arbitrariness could give losers an excuse to accuse me, a contestant, of giving myself an advantage.  The openness and objectivity turned out to be a real boon with benefit well beyond my selfish reason for demanding it.   I thought Shareen and Warren did a great job, but their arbitrary seeding gave losers a pretense to abuse them.  That problem disappeared.  If you don't like Paul's seeding method, I again suggest you devise a different objective formula.  It's harder than winging it, but it makes for a lot better contest.  

[Howard Rush]

Ted,

That's what I meant about having a scheme to pick 40 people to fly Friday accommodating any combination of event entries.  You might not want to pick 20 out of 30 Open contestants and 10 out of 50 Experts.  If you think some peculiar combination might happen, come up with a three-dimensional (the three events) chart of how many from each event go to Friday.  Trying to do that hurt my head, so I just simplified it per my second post above.

[RandySmith]

This is unnecessary.  Stop selling and pay attention.

Howard you are being snotty, I am not selling , PAMPA did do this many years ago..it has Nothing to do with the Expert proposal, I mentioned this because of the 2 days the PAMPA decided they wanted , this will still be  PAMPA's and David's call Not mine

No.  You cannot both have a fixed and variable number of Open semifinalists.   I didn't ask for a variable, I asked for FIXed on OPEN for the reasons stated

The seeding program will have to be modified for Expert.  I mentioned Expert seeding weighting as an example of omitted detail and have seen no suggestions.
The suggestion was to use the program criteria of those who have placed at the NATs in the past years Howard, just as we do now

What do you mean, "does not meet the criteria"?   I mean someone who has never flown at the NATs before and has NOT a history to seed them by

Arbitrary seeding is a bad idea.  One of the conditions I made when I wrote the program you guys think is so trivial is that everything be open and objective.  I wanted this because any whiff of arbitrariness could give losers an excuse to accuse me, a contestant, of giving myself an advantage.  The openness and objectivity turned out to be a real boon with benefit well beyond my selfish reason for demanding it.   I thought Shareen and Warren did a great job, but their arbitrary seeding gave losers a pretense to abuse them.  That problem disappeared.  If you don't like Paul's seeding method, I again suggest you devise a different objective formula.  It's harder than winging it, but it makes for a lot better contest.  

As I said Howard I DO LIKE Paul's method of seeding, But it may not work for a NEW pilots that has NEVER been to the NATs, we could have a World Champ come to fly and he would not be seeded using the method we now use, That is why we have an E.D. so problems like this can be dealt with ,if ,needed.

[/size][/size]

[RandySmith]

Hi Howard

Can we also assume, and include the format below?  The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping

(Clip)
Howard and Randy,

This may not be the appropriate place to mention this but the following occurred to me after reviewing the longer thread that precipitated this one.  It has to do with predicting with any realistic hope of success what the spread of entries in classes  is apt to be and whether that will effect any program utilized to handle the processes involved..

The tenor of comments supporting the change implies that it is expected that some of the fliers now electing to fly Advanced but with skills commensurate with Expert Level scores will move from Advanced to Expert thus freeing the Advanced group of people who have previously felt Open was too competitive—or should be the province of “Masters”.  We had 21 Advanced entries who flew this year all of whom I watched fly and about 1/3 of whom I thought exhibited higher than “normal”  expertise for Advanced.  If seven of the 21 opt to fly Expert that will leave a possible 14 Advanced entries.

The corollary expectation in Open seems to be that some percentage will opt to “step down” from the Open Category to find relief from the “usual suspects”.  This year we had something like 45 who flew Open.  A drop of 1/3 from that would leave 30 Open contestants; a better outlook than for Advanced whose projected numbers would be approaching “modest”.

Using the same assumptions, the expert event, on the other hand would pick up 15 from Expert and seven from Advanced plus the 25 to 30 that Randy has determined will be new attendees attracted by the Expert Class.
 
 The result would be something on the order of: Advanced, 14 entries, Open, 30 entries, Expert, somewhere between 47 and 52 entries.  The grand total would be somewhere between 91 and 96 entries.  A substantial increase but not particularly well balanced.  It might be worth considering the potential for such disparate numbers into your discussion of formatting and the necessary digital doodling to make it all work smoothly.

Ted

Ted
What I said was 15 new pilots , I thought would enter EXPERT, I never said there would be 47 to 52. and also you forgot to mention that the Advanced ranks could be helped out by Intermediate flyers now coming up, if the EXPERTS that fly Advanced were vacated, and also some who don't enter because of that.
This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen.

Randy

[Howard Rush]

"Howard you are being snotty"

I am aware of that.


"didn't ask for a variable, I asked for FIXed on OPEN for teh reasons stated"

That is not "also assume, and include".  I proposed a change to a variable number of semifinalists in case Open entries fall below 24, for reasons we both stated.  We can debate whether the Top 20 tradition and Rookie of the Year numerology outweigh having judges stand in the sun for two days for naught.  


"I mean someone who has never flown at the NATs before and has NOT a history to seed them by"

Another problem is guys who haven't flown lately.  Suppose Les McDonald and Jim Casale show up to fly stunt.  Come up with a method you think will work and write it down.


"That is why we have an E.D. so problems like this can be dealt with ,if ,needed."

The dark-horse problem pales (how's that for a metaphor?) beside the ED-picking-winners problem. If you don't fancy the bother of writing a better objective seeding method, find some drone to do it.  This drone thinks Paul's suffices.

[Howard Rush]

"This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen."

Hence the analysis. 

[Brett Buck]

Hi Howard

Can we also assume, and include the format below?  The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping

Assumptions:
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now, per PAMPA directive
2. 20 Open contestants will fly a semifinals to select five contestants for the finals.
3. Up to a total of 10 Expert and 10 Advanced contestants will fly a finals to determine placings.
4. Contestants in each event will be divided into two ,or four groups for qualification rounds.
5. For a given event, an equal number of contestants will be selected to advance from each qualification group.
6. For a given event, the difference in number of contestants in each qualification circle will not exceed one.
7. Ties will be handled per the present program.
8. Seeding will apply using the program we now use, If the pilot does not meet the criteria and warrants seeding the E.D. will handle those pilots
Randy

   I think that 20 people for Top 20 day for Open is a good goal. The problem will come when there are so few entrants that qualifying becomes a fun-fly. If we are insistent that this be maintained (please do not use the word "directive"...), then the clear solution is to seed the ADV/EXP/Open over the 4 circles evenly just like now, and take 5 from each circle.

     If you take less than 20 in Open (which I think should be seriously considered) then I would suggest segregating Open into 2 circles and flying EXP/ADV in the other two circles to reduce the quantization issue.

     I would note that for the "everybody together across 4 circles" plan, you can't take 10 people for ADV and EXP finals. It would have to be 8, 12, 16, or 20 (i.e. divisible by 4). I don't think that we should ever, ever try to take, say, 2 people from one circle and 3 from another (necessary to get 10 total) because that requires some ranking across the different circles. This has even more severe "quantization" effect than it does in Open, since ADV and EXP seeding is so dubious due to lack of reliable data.

    After having thought it through some more, this is what I propose - Break the entrants into two groups. When you find out what the entry will be (after entry closes, not on pre-entries), take the two smaller classes and fly them together on two circles, and fly the large class by itself on the other two. In all cases, take some fraction of the total, up to 20, to fly in the finals. On Top 20 day, same sort of thing, take the largest group and fly it on two of the circles, and the two smaller ones on the other two. Worst-case it will double number of flights in one set of circles but it's no worse than qualifying days.  In a realistic case you will probably wind up with something less than that because I would be surprised if it ever comes out 20/20/20 after the first few years.  Put the Junior and Senior on with the small group on Friday. Still use Top 5 in Open for the fly-off, Walker trophy as normal.

    By the way, there's a solution to the skill class placement issue, as well. I don't propose we do this, I merely present it as food for thought. Run everybody together on 4 seeded circles, no classes. Take the Top 20 from qualifying, call that the "A Flight" and have a fly-off for the Championship. Take 20-40, call that "B Flight", and give that some sort of trophy for "B Flight Winner". Nobody has to define themselves in a class, it sorts itself out. It's a completely different way of looking at it (that is used every Friday night most small race tracks in America).

    Brett

[RandySmith]

1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now, per PAMPA directive

Howard and Brett

The above I typed maybe misunderstood, my meaning was about the Decision made by PAMPA years ago on the 2 day qualifying rounds *ONLY*  it had nothing to do with the 3 events we were also talking about, only about giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.

I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.

Randy

[Howard Rush]

   I think that 20 people for Top 20 day for Open is a good goal. The problem will come when there are so few entrants that qualifying becomes a fun-fly.

It starts becoming a fun fly with 23, hence the plan to drop to four semifinalists per circle for fewer than 24. 

If you take less than 20 in Open (which I think should be seriously considered) then I would suggest segregating Open into 2 circles and flying EXP/ADV in the other two circles to reduce the quantization issue.

I might put the two-four threshold lower on Open because of the more reliable seeding you mentioned.  Unless all three events are tiny, you could put the biggest in Groups 1-4, one of the other two on Groups 1 and 2, and the remaining one on Groups 3 and 4, favoring Open as the four-circle event. 

After having thought it through some more, this is what I propose - Break the entrants into two groups. When you find out what the entry will be (after entry closes, not on pre-entries), take the two smaller classes and fly them together on two circles, and fly the large class by itself on the other two.

You will note that if 40-some people fly Open as they did this year, your suggestion would spread their flights over more time.  The two-four break should be a function of number of Open (or one of the others if it's way bigger) entrants: it need not be compromised by the additional event.

I would note that for the "everybody together across 4 circles" plan, you can't take 10 people for ADV and EXP finals. It would have to be 8, 12, 16, or 20 (i.e. divisible by 4). I don't think that we should ever, ever try to take, say, 2 people from one circle and 3 from another (necessary to get 10 total) because that requires some ranking across the different circles.

Hence Assumption 5.  Randy proposed 10 and 10, but the proposal also says, "The Expert event can be run very easily with the circles and manpower we use now, by simply adding them to the 2 qualifying circles we use for the Advanced class." He said that Advanced is currently run on two circles, which would make 10 and 10 viable.

By the way, there's a solution to the skill class placement issue, as well. I don't propose we do this, I merely present it as food for thought. Run everybody together on 4 seeded circles, no classes. Take the Top 20 from qualifying, call that the "A Flight" and have a fly-off for the Championship. Take 20-40, call that "B Flight", and give that some sort of trophy for "B Flight Winner". Nobody has to define themselves in a class, it sorts itself out. It's a completely different way of looking at it (that is used every Friday night most small race tracks in America).

Food for thought indeed.  It might have to wait until all events fly by the same age and BOM rules: replacement of Open with Expert.   I like the idea of flying off for skill classes.  But then you'd have the sandbaggers holding back in the qualification rounds, but not too much, lest they not make the Advanced (B) finals, then pouring on the coal in the Finals. 

[Howard Rush]

...giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.

I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.

I think everybody agrees to that, and the tables above propose a way to make the qualifications meaningful whatever the entry in each event precisely to preserve the format. 

[Brett Buck]

The above I typed maybe misunderstood, my meaning was about the Decision made by PAMPA years ago on the 2 day qualifying rounds *ONLY*  it had nothing to do with the 3 events we were also talking about, only about giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.

I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.

    Agreed, that should be maintained and there's no obvious reason it can't. But the qualifying rounds have to mean something. I wouldn't ask the judges to stand out there for two long days just for symbolic purposes.

     Brett

  

[RandySmith]

   Agreed, that should be maintained and there's no obvious reason it can't. But the qualifying rounds have to mean something. I wouldn't ask the judges to stand out there for two long days just for symbolic purposes.

     Brett

  

Yes i agree , however I am not too worried about the judges being worked too hard because they are done by early afternoon just after lunch, and they have tents and chairs , so we have done a lot to help that situation. I guess it would be nice to have over 100 flyers there again, and have this problem to worry about.

Randy

[Brett Buck]

Yes i agree , however I am not too worried about the judges being worked too hard because they are done by early afternoon just after lunch, and they have tents and chairs , so we have done a lot to help that situation.

   You missed my point - if there are only 18 entrants, you don't want to do four rounds of qualifying to select the Top 20. Neither of us are so self-indulgent as to make them stand out there for even an extra hour if it means absolutely nothing. In fact, any Open flier who *didn't* pass all four flights in that situation, I would have to wonder about.

   So I think the issue boils down to how to deal with the possibility of reduced entry *per class* for qualifying and the Finals, i.e. how do decide how many people to take for "top 20" day, and then how to set it up for variations. All ahead of time so your software can handle it.

    Brett

[RandySmith]

Hi Brett

I didn't miss your point, I got it.
 I don't think we will have that problem, But  you are correct and I do agree that if we do, we have to be prepared for it.
Thanks for the input.

Randy

[Derek Barry]

Top 8 from Advanced (it was that way before) Top 8 from Expert (its new and may not have big numbers) and top 20 from Open (just because, and I don't think that 50% of them will move "down" to Expert). Fly everyone on all 4 circles so that the current format will still work. This will also make Advanced and Expert qualifying "mean" something because it will not be that easy to get into the finals.

Or:
IF we/they/whoever decide to use ten from each group it is not that complicated either. With our current Nats system, lets say that I am on circle 1 on Wednesday and Brett is on 3. On Thursday I am on 3 and Brett is on 1. Aren't he and I technically in the same group because Wednesday's high score is added to Thursday's high score and aren't we actually taking ten from a larger group that is split into two circles but are still flying in front of the same judges? So, couldn't we (in Advanced and Expert) take five people from group 1-3 and five from group 2-4 and still come out with ten for each event as Randy originally suggested? Just food for thought.

Derek

[John Lindberg]

Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish?   

[Derek Barry]

Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish?   

DuPont 480s but I am having a hard time finding it anymore. Thanks a lot EPA!

Derek

[Derek Barry]

Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish?   

There is no BOM requirement in Advanced only appearance points if you did in fact build your own model. And yes it would be the same in Expert. You can fly something that you did not build you just cant expect appearance points for it.

Derek

[john e. holliday]

A lot of hasseling over what is going to happen when we don't know for sure how many contestants there will be for any of the classes.  I remember the year the joke was going around about Intermediate was going to take top ten to final flights.   Joke was there was only nine entries.  In my opinion and it can be ignored because I don't fly at the NATS, is a max of ten for final flights in Adv and Exp.   Then if not enough in Open, say only 30 or less, only the top ten fly a finals for top 5.

[Brett Buck]

A lot of hasseling over what is going to happen when we don't know for sure how many contestants there will be for any of the classes. 

     The "hasseling" is precisely to generate a plan to handle an unknown number of entries. It's very easy to say "just figure it out on the fly, what's the big deal?", but there is a tremendous amount of work in generating scoresheets and handling judge distribution. All that is handled by software, that has to be designed, written, and tested beforehand, meaning you have to have a plan that both handles variable entry levels but also is sufficiently well-defined to determine the software requirements and where to distribute software-based and manual operations.

   That is the reason we are having this discussion at all. This is a devilishly difficult problem, if it seems trivial or petty, you don't understand the issue.

    Brett

[Derek Barry]

     The "hasseling" is precisely to generate a plan to handle an unknown number of entries. It's very easy to say "just figure it out on the fly, what's the big deal?", but there is a tremendous amount of work in generating scoresheets and handling judge distribution. All that is handled by software, that has to be designed, written, and tested beforehand, meaning you have to have a plan that both handles variable entry levels but also is sufficiently well-defined to determine the software requirements and where to distribute software-based and manual operations.

   That is the reason we are having this discussion at all. This is a devilishly difficult problem, if it seems trivial or petty, you don't understand the issue.

    Brett

Brett is right, I know from experience that "the Program" does not like unexpected changes. It can make your life hell. On the other hand when everything is going as expected the program works great and makes life a lot better for the administration.

Derek

[Derek Barry]

Like I said in my earlier post, I think 8 to 10 Expert and Advanced pilots in the finals is a safe number to start with. Just my .02

Derek

[Trostle]

Like I said in my earlier post, I think 8 to 10 Expert and Advanced pilots in the finals is a safe number to start with. Just my .02

Derek

8 or 10 in each of those events should not be so hard to accept.  Yes, a handfull of those who would otherwise qualify would get to fly more, and get bragging rights about "qualifying", but the outcome would not change appreciably in the final placing of those who did not qualify.  Except for that bragging right about qualifying, it really is not any more significant about placing 12th with 20 qualifiers, that placing 12th with 10 qualifiers.  And the computer programs can make this determination, as well as the determination can be calculated manually.  It is not rocket science.  The work load on the judges and tabulation is also reduced with no real downside to taking fewer finalists with the scenarios being discussed.

Gee whiz,  "Back in the day", often there were only 10 Open finalists at the Nats.  I think one year when PAMPA was running one of their early Nats, we had 15 finalists, 5 from each of 3 circles.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

Brett is right, I know from experience that "the Program" does not like unexpected changes. It can make your life hell. On the other hand when everything is going as expected the program works great and makes life a lot better for the administration.

    This is essentially a software development question. I have worked this sort of issue from many different aspects over the years and there are two things that are critical  - get a clear idea what you want to do up front, and make the various functions as modular as possible so when you *do* need to change it, it has a minimal side effects.

    Brett

  

[Brett Buck]

8 or 10 in each of those events should not be so hard to accept.  Yes, a handfull of those who would otherwise qualify would get to fly more, and get bragging rights about "qualifying", but the outcome would not change appreciably in the final placing of those who did not qualify.  Except for that bragging right about qualifying, it really is not any more significant about placing 12th with 20 qualifiers, that placing 12th with 10 qualifiers.  And the computer programs can make this determination, as well as the determination can be calculated manually.  It is not rocket science.  The work load on the judges and tabulation is also reduced with no real downside to taking fewer finalists with the scenarios being discussed.

Gee whiz,  "Back in the day", often there were only 10 Open finalists at the Nats.  I think one year when PAMPA was running one of their early Nats, we had 15 finalists, 5 from each of 3 circles.

      I think we are in agreement that "fewer than 20" is justified in cases where the entry is small enough. Once we get over that hump it's a matter of how to select the number of finalists, and how to arrange the circles to come up with a fair way of doing it.

    It was possible to change your plan easily on the fly when it was all done manually. Once you have software involved, you lose some flexibility. I don't  think we will find a lot of volunteers to go back to the 3-in-the-morning manual methods.

    I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.

    Brett

[RandySmith]

"I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.

    Brett"


Hi Brett

Agreed I would also perfer that, It would also make seeding not as critical.

Randy

[Ted Fancher]

Ted
What I said was 15 new pilots , I thought would enter EXPERT, I never said there would be 47 to 52. and also you forgot to mention that the Advanced ranks could be helped out by Intermediate flyers now coming up, if the EXPERTS that fly Advanced were vacated, and also some who don't enter because of that.
This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen.

Randy

Sorry, Randy.  I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held.  If not, I apologize.  The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters."  I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks.   Ted

[Howard Rush]

Sorry, Randy.  I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held.  If not, I apologize.  The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters."  I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks.   Ted

Howard who?

[RandySmith]

Sorry, Randy.  I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held.  If not, I apologize.  The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters."  I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks.   Ted

Hi Ted

What i stated in the meeting, and to many others, and wrote online was that I had talked with and knew of about 15 people, I then said that there could be as many as 25 people enter Expert. Again I have no crystal ball and cannot see the exact numbers that will be there, I do know that this economy will have a big effect one way or another, Let's just hope for better in the Future

Randy

[Derek Barry]

"I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.

    Brett"


Hi Brett

Agreed I would also perfer that, It would also make seeding not as critical.

Randy

But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".

Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.


Derek

[Howard Rush]

Once you have software involved, you lose some flexibility.

Once you have objectivity involved, you lose some flexibility.  It would be dead easy to do seeding, judge assignment, circle allocation, and circle balancing arbitrarily, either by hand or with software.  That would return us to the dark ages of losers raising a stink and volunteers being abused.  

Edited to attribute the quote to Brett.  Myself, I'd be glad to get credit for stuff Brett says (for the most part).

[Derek Barry]

Once you have objectivity involved, you lose some flexibility.  It would be dead easy to do seeding, judge assignment, circle allocation, and circle balancing arbitrarily, either by hand or with software.  That would return us to the dark ages of losers raising a stink and volunteers being abused. 

That quote was not from me??

Derek

[Howard Rush]

But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".

Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.

Unless Open entries fall way below 24, I'd keep it on four circles.  That all the judges would get to judge Open in the qualification rounds is another benefit of keeping it as is.  

[RandySmith]

But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".

Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.


Derek

I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently.  I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges

Randy

[Derek Barry]

I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently.  I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges

Randy

Oh, well hopefully that doesn't happen any time soon. I get what you are saying now.

Derek

[John Lindberg]

Derek, I think www.shopforpaint.com has the 480s, certainly appears so. 

[Brett Buck]

I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently.  I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges

   I think that in a two-circle plan, you just send Open group 1 to Circle 1, Open group 2 to Circle 2 on Wednesday, and send Open to 3 and 4 on Thursday, every judge gets one day of Open.

[Derek Barry]

   I think that in a two-circle plan, you just send Open group 1 to Circle 1, Open group 2 to Circle 2 on Wednesday, and send Open to 3 and 4 on Thursday, every judge gets one day of Open.

That works too.

Derek

[Derek Barry]

Derek, I think www.shopforpaint.com has the 480s, certainly appears so.  

Found it! Thanks a bunch John!!!!!!!!

Derek

[ptg]

This is a long thread and somewhat confusing.  So how about this for running Open and Expert.

First dispense with all the Pre-Game Pageantry. 

Open Qualify:  Wednesday__3 circles_1 flight on each circle, throw out the low score and sum the two best scores to determine the final 10

Open Finals:  Thursday__ 2 circles, 2 flights on each circle (4 total), take the two highest scores for each finalist, add them together and get your winners.

Expert:  Friday__3 circles_1 flight on each circle throw out the low score, average the two highest scores__get your winners

Fly the Walker Cup on Friday after the first round of Expert.

Friday Evening:  Post Game Pageantry Potpourri (PGPP)

Display all the airplanes, vote and pick the Concurs winner.

Award trophies

Set up a podium in the corner with folding chairs so those who feel compelled to make speeches can do so and those who feel compelled to listen can squat and lend ear.

Serve your food….cocktail wieners, cookies and Alka Seltzer_____or whatever your poison.

Have a Monte Carlo night with airplane stuff as prizes

Too provocative you say, how about airplane stuff Bingo!

Still to provocative??  How about just watch recordings of stunt flights

For those who miss picking ping pong balls for flight order, they will be provided at the PGPP.  That way you can see when you could have flown instead of when you did.

Display computers with programs for seeding, printing scores, overhead projecting et al for those who are interested, those who just want to see how they work and those who want to make them work differently

Opps, did I forget appearance points…..my bad!

It’s the NATS for peat sake.  You’re not buying a house.  Participation won’t be encouraged or increased by exacting even more pain and misery prior to the big event. 

If you’re ready, get there on Tuesday, Qualify on Wednesday, win on Thursday. 

If you’re NOT ready get there as far in advanced as you need and proceed to Wednesday and Thursday.

QED

[Howard Rush]

It looks like the two main issues are: 1) how many in each class advance from the qualification round to the next round and 2) circle allocation.  It looks like these are sufficiently independent to be considered separately, so how about considering #1 first?

1. I have been thinking that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event should be a function of the number of entries in all three events.  Do you think that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event can be a function only of the number of entries in that individual event?  That would be a nice simplification if it's justified.  For example, if you get 8 in Expert and 30 in Advanced and go by the chart in the second post in this thread for Expert, do you take 6 in Expert and 10 in Advanced to the finals, or do you take 6 and 14 to give a total of 20?  Please consider all combinations of entries among the three events when coming up with an answer. 

My charts above are based on Brett's 3/4 criterion, plus the requirement to eliminate at least one person in each qualification group, as stated in the first post.  I have since received suggestions off-line that we eliminate half each group in the qualifications, with some maximum, eg. 20 for Open.  Thus the Open semifinals would only be the top 20 if there are at least 39 Open entries.  I (or you) can make new charts assuming 1/2 or some other fraction.  The fraction to use looks like a matter of opinion.  Is there any good reason for a particular fraction?

[Brett Buck]

1. I have been thinking that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event should be a function of the number of entries in all three events.  Do you think that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event can be a function only of the number of entries in that individual event?  That would be a nice simplification if it's justified.  For example, if you get 8 in Expert and 30 in Advanced and go by the chart in the second post in this thread for Expert, do you take 6 in Expert and 10 in Advanced to the finals, or do you take 6 and 14 to give a total of 20?  Please consider all combinations of entries among the three events when coming up with an answer. 

   I think it should be independent. I can see no reason to punish or reduce the participation of one class because of the turnout in a different class, and, as you note, it's a lot simpler to deal with. It will be messy enough even without that.

    In terms of fractions, we have typically started having serious discussions of reducing the size of "Top 20 day" when we got under 30 Open. The first time I recall talking about it was in 1994, where there were 28 Open entrants. We went with 20 anyway in that case, which was 71%. I think there is some good value having 20 people in the Finals, it's still manageable even if you get 20 in each. Maybe you hold Open at 75% or 20, and ADV/EXP the others could go to 50% since the Finals are really final, and there is a value in reducing the number of competitors to make it easier to pick the winner. Open goes to a flyoff the next day, too, so there is less gain for reducing the participants for the "Finals".

   I would also note that the more you reduce it, the more you want to use a 2-circle format instead of a 4-circle format for qualifying. It also tends to solve the debate on how to group them.

   So, altered proposal. For Open, take 75% or 20, whichever is less, rounding up to the nearest even number. For ADV/EXP, take 50% or 16, whichever is less, rounded up to the nearest even number. Run ADV/EXP together in two circles (1 and 2), run Open in two circles (3 and 4), seed as usual. Flip the circle assignments on Thursday so the judges all get the same overall workload during qualifying. Run the finals as normal, with whatever numbers you end up with, Open by itself on two circles, ADV/EXP by itself on the other two circles. ADV/EXP are done. Open flyoff  as per normal the next day.

    I would also consider running Jr/Sr after Open on "Top 20 day" on the same circles. That will even out the finishing times a bit. Open "Top 20" day will be done before ADV/EXP most of the time.

    Brett

[Ted Fancher]

This is starting to sound a lot more complex than Jr, Sr, Open.

[Howard Rush]

But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly.

Brett showed how that could be done, as you noted.  There is a problem with the judge ranking formula, though.  It works OK when all judges judge about the same number of flights.  I suspect the scores may not be normalized.  If so, and if that doesn't get addressed, judges on circles with fewer contestants than others will get a score that's too low (or too high: I forget which).  Just another detail that should have been considered from the get-go.  We can cover this in the circle allocation discussion. 

[Howard Rush]

This is starting to sound a lot more complex than Jr, Sr, Open.

Too bad two weeks ago it didn't start to sound as complex as it is.

[Bob Whitely]

Seems like you guys are overthinking the situation. Appears pretty basic to me
but I am just a simple kind of guy. I think it is a great idea and dead easy to do
with virtually no impact on the overall operation. Remember that if you give
a lazy guy a job he will find the easiest way to do it. We're not doing a moon
or a Mars landing and we have some fellas on here who actually can do that.
Step back, think easy and just do it.  As for me, as someone here said, I'm just
in it for the booze, broads and bread! I'm just sayin'...RJ