Open top 20 at the Nats

[Derek Barry]

There has been some discussion going on, on what we should do if turnout at the Nats continues to decline, specifically in Open. Last year, the Nats ED and crew ran into a little problem when the second day of qualifying was over. "The program" spat out 16, not 20 contestants for the following day. The ED came up with a work around that got us through the contest, but it caused some problems and a few complaints.
 So, here we are again, getting ready for the 2019 Nats and Howard has asked Mark and I how we would like to proceed. He has offered to update the program, but wants to do so now, so we still have time to run tests before we show up in Muncie.

My stance is that we should preserve the top 20 for as long as we possibly can.

The question that we have to answer is: where do we draw the line on where the cut off should be? If I remember correctly, last year it was at 32. Any less and only 16 move on to the semifinals.

I say 28 or even 24 is a better trigger number, but that's just me.

Hopefully we will have a great turnout this year and in the future, and this will become a non issue.

Derek

[Dennis Adamisin]

I agree completely.  Good idea to head it off now too.

[Howard Rush]

There has been some discussion going on, on what we should do if turnout at the Nats continues to decline, specifically in Open. Last year, the Nats ED and crew ran into a little problem when the second day of qualifying was over. "The program" spat out 16, not 20 contestants for the following day. The ED came up with a work around that got us through the contest, but it caused some problems and a few complaints.

I think your best bet would be to do the tabulation by hand.

[Steve Fitton]

I'd be hesitant to change the Nats until it seemed like lower attendance was a permanent situation.

[Howard Rush]

I'd be hesitant to change the Nats until it seemed like lower attendance was a permanent situation.

I hear this a lot.  Why would you abuse judges by spending two days to send 5 out of 5 guys in one circle to the next round, as we did in Advanced in 2012? Wouldn't it be better to decide now what to do for any number of entries?  That way, the Nats process would be reasonable whether attendance dwindles to 21 next year or 2025.

What to do for any number of entries is in the Nats tabulation program now.  It's been there for both Advanced and Open since 2015.  It figures the number of circles to give a good balance between round length and uniformity, and it sends what I think is a reasonable fraction of guys to the next round.  A graph of it is below.  Advanced has fallen below the threshold for four circles and 20 finalists for a few years, and it's worked fine. 

Some guys--Derek and Frank Williams, for example-- want to preserve the tradition of a 20-pilot Open semifinals at some or all cost.   I came up with two other schemes that will do that.  Derek can show them here.  Other schemes are possible. Derek and Mark are deciding which to employ. 

The question that we have to answer is: where do we draw the line on where the cut off should be? If I remember correctly, last year it was at 32. Any less and only 16 move on to the semifinals.

The question that you have to answer is: what do you do for any level of entry?  Namely, how many circles do we use, and how many from each circle advance to the semifinals?  You should also challenge some assumptions.  For example, do we take the same number from each circle to the semifinals?

[Howard Rush]

February 28,

Last year, the Nats ED and crew ran into a little problem when the second day of qualifying was over. "The program" spat out 16, not 20 contestants for the following day. The ED came up with a work around that got us through the contest, but it caused some problems and a few complaints.

On February 28, 2018, I sent the above graph of what was in the program along with a simplified animation of what happens for any entry level to Darrell Harvin, his initial deputy, Matt Neumann, Dennis Adamisin, and others.
On April 8, 2018, I sent the same materials to Dave Trible.
On May 31, 2018, I resent the same materials to Darrell, Dave, and Matt.
On June 9,  2018, I sent the same materials to John Hill, who'd taken over tabulation, with copies again to Matt, Dave, and Darrell

Thursday at the Nats, they "ran into a little problem".  Golly, how could they have known what would happen?

I started last August for this year's Nats, and I've been pushier.

[Mark Weiss]

Since agreeing to be this year's Event Director, I have learned a lot about what it takes to run this event smoothly. As you can imagine, there are a lot of moving parts. There are also diverse opinions about some issues that fall into the category I will name, "Traditions vs Change." There are two things I believe we can all agree upon. The Nats is our National Championship and it is steeped in wonderful tradition and ceremony. It is ours to cherish and continue for as long as folks fly stunt. Change refers to the reality that all forms of aeromodelling are struggling. The numbers keep dropping in all indicators: participants, hobby shops, national suppliers, trade show attendance of both vendors and visitors, loss of modelling magazines, and more.
So, when trying to make the best choices about our event, data is compared to tradition.

Last year, there were fewer pilots in Open as there had been for years. There were some reasons for that including the timing of the Worlds Championships in France. That by itself took some of our top flyers out of the Nats.

It is the decision of the ED each year what if any changes need to be made to make the event as successful and smooth as possible. I formed a volunteer group of highly respected folks who have either run the Nats or been very instrumental in its operation from all angles. I have nearly 40 pages of emails containing both facts and opinions about the past, present, and the future. I can promise you this....every one of us wants the Nats to go forever and improving each year.

I have been studying the various formulas and ask for help when I need it. I have also promised my decision regarding the "Top 20" would be made very soon. It is very important that the stunt community know exactly what will be incorporated this July and why. My objectives have not changed. I want all attendees to have a great time and be part of a terrific contest. if you are wondering what you can do for your Nats (aka John Kennedy), I know that answer. Plan on attending!! There are never too many pilots, judges, CD's, tabulators, runners, and more. Thank you, Mark

[Abi]

Respectfully, I offer some thoughts for consideration:
1) How was the number 20 was determined? Was it because of very large number of contestants or the other way around?
2) if one were to take any group of people, their skills in whatever area distributed in a bell curve. now consider what is the intent of qualifying rounds when tryin to pare down the number of contestants. Is to split the bell curve in half(50/50)?
3) When looking at judges, should their workload decrease proportionately to the number of contestants?

Few quotes for inspiration:
“Tradition is a guide and not a jailer.” ― W. Somerset Maugham
“But merely being tradition does not make something worthy. We can't just assume that because something is old it is right.” ― Brandon Sanderson
“The human soul can always use a new tradition. Sometimes we require them.” ― Pat Conroy

[Derek Barry]

February 28,
On February 28, 2018, I sent the above graph of what was in the program along with a simplified animation of what happens for any entry level to Darrell Harvin, his initial deputy, Matt Neumann, Dennis Adamisin, and others.
On April 8, 2018, I sent the same materials to Dave Trible.
On May 31, 2018, I resent the same materials to Darrell, Dave, and Matt.
On June 9,  2018, I sent the same materials to John Hill, who'd taken over tabulation, with copies again to Matt, Dave, and Darrell

Thursday at the Nats, they "ran into a little problem".  Golly, how could they have known what would happen?

I started last August for this year's Nats, and I've been pushier.

That paragraph was a short summation of what happened last year, not an insult directed at you. Yes, you sent all the pertinent information to those who needed it. It was obviously overlooked by all of them. I will admit that when I first looked at the graph, I didn't notice the number of semifinalist changing either.

You know, you probably could have walked over to Darrell at the pilots meeting, and reminded him what was about to happen if we had less than 32 entries... But who am I to judge.

[Derek Barry]

I hear this a lot.  Why would you abuse judges by spending two days to send 5 out of 5 guys in one circle to the next round, as we did in Advanced in 2012? Wouldn't it be better to decide now what to do for any number of entries?  That way, the Nats process would be reasonable whether attendance dwindles to 21 next year or 2025.

What to do for any number of entries is in the Nats tabulation program now.  It's been there for both Advanced and Open since 2015.  It figures the number of circles to give a good balance between round length and uniformity, and it sends what I think is a reasonable fraction of guys to the next round.  A graph of it is below.  Advanced has fallen below the threshold for four circles and 20 finalists for a few years, and it's worked fine. 

Some guys--Derek and Frank Williams, for example-- want to preserve the tradition of a 20-pilot Open semifinals at some or all cost.   I came up with two other schemes that will do that.  Derek can show them here.  Other schemes are possible. Derek and Mark are deciding which to employ. 

The question that you have to answer is: what do you do for any level of entry?  Namely, how many circles do we use, and how many from each circle advance to the semifinals?  You should also challenge some assumptions.  For example, do we take the same number from each circle to the semifinals?

I don't think it is abusive to ask the judges to judge a few hours on Wednesday and Thursday, even if it is a faux qualification. Just like us pilots, its good for the judges to get a few days of practice before the big show.

My stance on top 20 is strictly traditional. I understand your logic on the lower entry levels, I just am not willing to change the entire contest because of one or two years of low turnout.

Derek

[Brett Buck]

I don't think it is abusive to ask the judges to judge a few hours on Wednesday and Thursday, even if it is a faux qualification. Just like us pilots, its good for the judges to get a few days of practice before the big show.

   Oh, come on!  The pilots fly for 16 minutes a day, complain about the weather or the scores, then go goof off all day. The judges are out there at 6:45 every morning all week long.
   
    I guess I missed the part where there was a null/moot qualification round last year. In those circumstances, all 5 fliers *should have passed as soon as they found out*. I find it borderline irresponsible that they didn't (although it may not have been clear to all that was going to happen).

My stance on top 20 is strictly traditional. I understand your logic on the lower entry levels, I just am not willing to change the entire contest because of one or two years of low turnout.

     It is strictly traditional. I am sure that everyone thought it was traditional to have no flight order and one circle, too, when they were doing that. Traditions change.

     I *do* agree that it is premature to assume this is a permanent state, but I think there needs to be flexibility to change when something absurd (as above) happens, whether it is every year or a one-off.

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

I still don’t know what you folks mean about doing one thing for a few years, then something else. My understanding is that:

We will keep the four-flight, two-day qualifications.

We will use fewer than four circles for low entries.

Derek and Mark will decide what number of circles to use and how many contestants will be eliminated for entry levels from 21 to 31.


I sent them three scenarios from which to pick, although others are possible. It would be nice to discuss them here. I can’t post graphs now. I’m not home. Consider, for example, the case where you send 20 of 23 to the next round. I have assumed that each qualifications circle sends the same number of guys to the next round. Because 20 is not integrally divisible by three and stunt fliers are integral, you’d use either one or two circles. If you use two, then one guy will get cut from one circle and two guys from the other. How about eliminating the assumption that equal numbers have to come from each circle? Then for 23 guys you could use three circles of 8, 8, and 7 guys and eliminate 1 from each?

Edited to fix arithmetic error that nobody noticed, such is our post-data world. 

[frank williams]

" I guess I missed the part where there was a null/moot qualification round last year. In those circumstances, all 5 fliers *should have passed as soon as they found out*. I find it borderline irresponsible that they didn't (although it may not have been clear to all that was going to happen)."

The trip number was 32 last year.  So 33 were needed for a legit top 20 ....
Unfortunately there were only 30 entries last year as I recall.  Split 8-8-7-7  ... so 10 were cut (2-2-3-3) to make an illegitimate top 20 ..... instead of a sweet 16

[Trostle]

The trip number was 32 last year.  So 33 were needed for a legit top 20 ....
Unfortunately there were only 30 entries last year as I recall.  Split 8-8-7-7  ... so 10 were cut (2-2-3-3) to make an illegitimate top 20 ..... instead of a sweet 16

The number 20 sounds even more "illegitimate" when the fact is pointed out that 4 of the top US pilots were in France.  Sure, it is nice to have "bragging rights" to be able to show on the record that one qualified for the top 20, but the numbers involved sort of dumb down the accomplishment of making the top qualifying round.

Keith

[Steve Fitton]

Why dont we just simplify it to a top ten from now on?

[Doug Moon]

The number 20 sounds even more "illegitimate" when the fact is pointed out that 4 of the top US pilots were in France.  Sure, it is nice to have "bragging rights" to be able to show on the record that one qualified for the top 20, but the numbers involved sort of dumb down the accomplishment of making the top qualifying round.

Keith

Wow..saying someones accomplishment is less so because some people were not there is totally uncalled for.  You have no idea what would have happened if they were there. 

Whoever made the top 20 that day did so against the competitors in front of them.  To say other wise is a COMPLETE SLAP IN THE FACE!

[Doug Moon]

Why dont we just simplify it to a top ten from now on?

That is an option.  Move it to the top10 on Friday and finish the contest on Friday as well and have Saturday as an option if there is rain etc.  Going from 10 to 5 for another day would seem like a waste of time.   

Seems to me a % number has to be set to create a sliding scale of fliers that move on when attendence is under a certain number. How we decide that % and the attendence cutoff???  Also I think it would be a good idea for PAMPA to make a statement in the newsletter the ED has the option to make adjustments to the contest format as needed in the event of weather and or low attendence. I know it's a given but it doesn't hurt to publish it and I think AMA says there needs to be notice ahead of time if there are changes to be made to a contest format.

[frank williams]

I think my use of the word "illegitimate" was misinterpreted.   I meant by "illegitimate", that the Nats  s/w program didn't recognized it.  The program wanted a finals of 16 and the contest management, when discovering this, wanted to stay with a top 20.  What this entailed was having to manually produce score sheets and posters that the program normally spit out.

[Deric Herrmann]

This may not be the place for this post but I have to ask the question what are we doing to stop the downward spiral? Over the years the hobby / sport has had numbers that show a decline in activity. What are PAMPA / AMA doing to stop the slow death of the hobby? It seems that we’re ok with one day telling our kids about this hobby that we participated in, the friends we made, the laughs, the trips, the competitions, etc. I have flown CL since I was a kid, flown RC planes and Helicopters, and ran RC boats in competition. Is it conceivable that CL opens the doors to different areas of the hobby and that we have decided to quarantine ourselves from the rest of the world? If old RC guys decide to retire flying CL that is awesome, I’m all for that. But could we take on the Oreo cookie mentality of the hobby world and give younger people a start into the hobby world and give older folks the same on the other end?
With STEM programs in schools wouldn’t CL be a perfect avenue for kids to build and fly? After all, CL is so much cheaper than RC and schools would have a much easier time funding it? I’m sure this is happening somewhere and we need to do more.
I want CL flying to survive long past when I’m dead and gone but we have to do something to get new folks involved and interested. If we allow something to die, it will. We need to build some bridges with the quad copter guys, maybe open our flying fields to be more friendly instead of secret clubs that require a secret handshake and salute. Getting back into CL after 20+ plus years I have met some awesome people, true gems, Kenny Stevens and Tom Morris for example but I have also met some that look down their noses at me and I get the feeling that I need to pay my dues to be allowed into certain circles. This is wrong. I can completely understand why new flyers walk away after building a rig on their own, crashing it and not getting any help in making it better.
Competition is great, I love it. But if I run all the people off that could one day compete against me it’s going to get pretty old having a competition with three flyers.
Sorry for the rant…  Just my $.02

[Doug Moon]

I think my use of the word "illegitimate" was misinterpreted.   I meant by "illegitimate", that the Nats  s/w program didn't recognized it.  The program wanted a finals of 16 and the contest management, when discovering this, wanted to stay with a top 20.  What this entailed was having to manually produce score sheets and posters that the program normally spit out.

Yes that is correct and how I read it for sure.

[Howard Rush]

Seems to me a % number has to be set to create a sliding scale of fliers that move on when attendence is under a certain number.

That's a great idea, Doug.  Good news! Jive Combat Team Laboratories has developed a time machine that enabled me to go back five years and incorporate it into the Nats tabulation program.  While I was in the past, I put a copy of the scheme in your In box.  The trouble is that if you alter the past now, nobody knows about it.  Funny how time machines work.

How we decide that % and the attendence cutoff???

I presume that is what this discussion is about.  I sent three scenarios to Derek and Mark, and they are pondering them.  I posted one of them (the one that's in the program now) above. 



[/quote]

[Howard Rush]

I think my use of the word "illegitimate" was misinterpreted.   I meant by "illegitimate", that the Nats  s/w program didn't recognized it.  The program wanted a finals of 16 and the contest management, when discovering this, wanted to stay with a top 20.  What this entailed was having to manually produce score sheets and posters that the program normally spit out.

Some of us think it is illegitimate to change the previously documented Nats process when you find that the contest is not progressing as you'd like.  Also, we went to some effort to overcome the illegitimacy of arbitrary, rather than randomly selected flight orders.

[Howard Rush]

Why dont we just simplify it to a top ten from now on?

That's what my wife thinks: keep it simple, rather than having a fancy schedule nobody looks at. 

[Howard Rush]

Here are the other two scenarios I proposed.  I think they can be improved, and I proposed a tweak in the post above.  If you would like to see a simple animation of how circle distribution and numbers advancing to the next round works for each, send me a message  and I'll email you copies.  The files are too big to post here. 

Behold that there are peculiarites in these graphs. I'll explain, but only if anybody asks. 

[Mark Weiss]

In my previous post on this topic, I believe I wrote that this issue is the battle between Tradition and Reality. There are good arguments on both sides of the isle. As the ED, that is not a place I want to be, straddling the fence, swaying in the breeze. So it is time to make the decision about our upcoming Nats, regarding the Open category.

I am going to honor having the highest scoring 20 Open pilots qualify to fly on Friday.

I am an optimist about having an attendance rebound this July, but also a realist about our future. My reasons for having the highest scoring 20 flyers are several. I am guided by a simple principal that says never penalize those who attend. If the field gets smaller for any reason, including the World's Championship, the highest scoring pilots who attend the Nats get the hardware. Period. They made the journey, they took their time and money to compete at our highest level.

When Secretariat won the Triple Crown with an amazing performance at Belmont Park, no one cares that the field that day was very limited. The fact remains that horse won and won in record fashion.

Those who come to the Nats cannot control who else is coming and should not be penalized by a recently-announced set of rule changes that makes their objectives much more difficult. That said, the time will come when all healthy and competitive Nats regulars will be there and that number will be dwindling. At some point, moving 20 to the semi-finals will not be possible.

As a first step, I am going to refer to the Friday competition as our Semi Finals, for that is exactly what it is. I think we should all get used to this change right now and the decision about what to do next year needs to be addressed this year, as soon as possible. Whatever is decided upon will give everyone the better part of a year to adjust and set their sights accordingly.

I know I have just made some friends and maybe lost others. But, being the ED to me is all about what is fair, what is in the best interests of our national championship, and what the ED and Asst ED can do to help provide a great event. Derek and I are looking forward to working with the many other volunteers to give all the competitors a terrific week. Thank you all. Mark

[frank williams]

I am going to honor having the highest scoring 20 Open pilots qualify to fly on Friday

Mark

I too, think that Nats Open attendance will indeed rebound to acceptable levels this year and we should have a great Nats, with a “top twenty” and all.  However just saying that you will have a “top 20”, as was discovered last year doesn’t necessarily mean that the program will respond accordingly. 

If for some reason the attendance is less than the “trip number”, whatever its set at now, you could still face a reduced “semi-final” number.  From the discussions earlier this year there was a consensus that the magic trip number in the program would be reduced from what it was last year to something lower.  I don’t remember what that was.  That number should be known and published beforehand.
 
Although, those who come all the way to the Nats want and should be rewarded with a top twenty semifinals, if for some reason a reduced number come, you will still be facing some manual re-configuring.

[Howard Rush]

In my previous post on this topic, I believe I wrote that this issue is the battle between Tradition and Reality. There are good arguments on both sides of the isle. As the ED, that is not a place I want to be, straddling the fence, swaying in the breeze. So it is time to make the decision about our upcoming Nats, regarding the Open category.

I am going to honor having the highest scoring 20 Open pilots qualify to fly on Friday.

I am an optimist about having an attendance rebound this July, but also a realist about our future. My reasons for having the highest scoring 20 flyers are several. I am guided by a simple principal that says never penalize those who attend. If the field gets smaller for any reason, including the World's Championship, the highest scoring pilots who attend the Nats get the hardware. Period. They made the journey, they took their time and money to compete at our highest level.

When Secretariat won the Triple Crown with an amazing performance at Belmont Park, no one cares that the field that day was very limited. The fact remains that horse won and won in record fashion.

Those who come to the Nats cannot control who else is coming and should not be penalized by a recently-announced set of rule changes that makes their objectives much more difficult. That said, the time will come when all healthy and competitive Nats regulars will be there and that number will be dwindling. At some point, moving 20 to the semi-finals will not be possible.

As a first step, I am going to refer to the Friday competition as our Semi Finals, for that is exactly what it is. I think we should all get used to this change right now and the decision about what to do next year needs to be addressed this year, as soon as possible. Whatever is decided upon will give everyone the better part of a year to adjust and set their sights accordingly.

I know I have just made some friends and maybe lost others. But, being the ED to me is all about what is fair, what is in the best interests of our national championship, and what the ED and Asst ED can do to help provide a great event. Derek and I are looking forward to working with the many other volunteers to give all the competitors a terrific week. Thank you all. Mark

That's nice, but pray tell us for 21 through 31 contestants, how many circles will you use and how many will be eliminated from each. 

[Howard Rush]

Mark chose Nats Two-Event Circle Distribution with 20 Sacred.pdf, posted in Reply 23 above.  I assumed that putting 21 guys on one circle to eliminate one guy would be goofier than having a 21-person semifinals, hence we'd do the latter for the case of 21 Open contestants.  Here is what the circle distributions look like for 22 through 31 Open contestants.  I show the distributions with 24 in Advanced in each case to illustrate how the two events combine. 

[Howard Rush]

Although, those who come all the way to the Nats want and should be rewarded with a top twenty semifinals, if for some reason a reduced number come, you will still be facing some manual re-configuring.

Why do you say that?  I asked you to propose what you'd do to ensure 20 semifinalists for a reduced number of entries.  You didn't come up with anything, so I did, you said you liked it, and Mark picked it.  Now it can be put into the program, which can respond automatically to any entry level. 

[Howard Rush]

I guess I missed the part where there was a null/moot qualification round last year. In those circumstances, all 5 fliers *should have passed as soon as they found out*. I find it borderline irresponsible that they didn't (although it may not have been clear to all that was going to happen).

That was in 2012.  You were in on the fix, which has been in place since.  I don't remember whether Advanced entry has fallen below 24 since then, but if so, Steve Yampolski's scheme did something reasonable.  Even with the scheme we'll use this year to take 20 of as few as 22, there will always be at least one guy who gets eliminated on each circle.

[RC Storick]

How was it done before computers?

[Derek Barry]

Mark chose Nats Two-Event Circle Distribution with 20 Sacred.pdf, posted in Reply 23 above.  I assumed that putting 21 guys on one circle to eliminate one guy would be goofier than having a 21-person semifinals, hence we'd do the latter for the case of 21 Open contestants.  Here is what the circle distributions look like for 22 through 31 Open contestants.  I show the distributions with 24 in Advanced in each case to illustrate how the two events combine.

Seems reasonable. I remember one time we had 6 in the top five...

Derek

[Steve Fitton]

Thank you, Howard, for your many toils on the program!

[Brett Buck]

How was it done before computers?

  Very well, with absolutely Herculean effort by a few ladies from 6 in the morning to 2-3 the next morning at times, hand-calculating the scores all day, then hand-generating the score sheets for the next 12 hours straight. And Shareen did it for 30+ years, every year. 

      Brett

[Howard Rush]

I think my use of the word "illegitimate" was misinterpreted.

Yes, it was, in one case by a mean person who can’t pass up a good straight line. You were using legitimate sarcasm.