Seeding

[RC Storick]

Seeding or nor I am getting better than when I first came back. The only thing I would like to see to level the field is Judges who don't know the fliers by name. Perhaps collage students who not only can see better and are more suited to stand all day. Maybe collage students from the aeronautical engineering end of the spectrum.

I also think this years Nats will be a little easier as not as many fliers will attend it. As far as protests go the AMA has put a sure end to it by imposing a $50.00 to do so. What does the money go to? The beer fund?? But no need to worry about that as I doubt anyone will protest ever again.

But what do I know..

[Randy Powell]

Man, you guys sure make attending a Nats seem like fun.

[Paul Walker]

I know that it must be something obvious...but you need less judges as you proceed, so I am still confused as to how you will determine who judges the Finals and subsequently the Walker Cup (which requires far less judges).  Are you saying the judges will *draw* to see if they *get* to judge the Walker Cup? 

If so, that's great!!!

No matter what, we APPRECIATE what you are doing Paul.  Bravo, and thanks.

Yes, that is correct. The judges that will judge the OPEN finals will be selected by a draw.  Once that is completed, the judges that didn't judge the OPEN finals will draw for the Walker Cup flyoff. By definition, there will be different judges for the Walker Cup than the OPEN finals!

Paul W

[Paul Walker]

Paul,
Thanks for sharing your plans. If I understand correctly, it sounds like the Walker Cup flyoff will finally be back the way it should be. 3 nat's champs competeing for the trophy, 1 junior, 1 senior, 1open, 2 flights each, high score wins?

     Arch

Close....The Walker Cup will fly 3 rounds, adding the 2 best to determine the winner.

Good thing that Gruber kid grew up!!!!

Paul

[Tom Niebuhr]

Robert "Sparky" wrote: "Perhaps collage students who not only can see better and are more suited to stand all day. Maybe collage students from the aeronautical engineering end of the spectrum."


Remember the problems with Navy judging? They were pilots and/or officers as I recall. All with college educations. Let's NEVER go back to that.

We will never satisfy everyone. but what we have now is far better than it was!

[Trostle]

Seeding or nor I am getting better than when I first came back. The only thing I would like to see to level the field is Judges who don't know the fliers by name. Perhaps collage students who not only can see better and are more suited to stand all day. Maybe collage students from the aeronautical engineering end of the spectrum.

(clip)

But what do I know..

Robert,

This is a neat idea, but there is a problem.  And it is the same problem we have in recruiting judges for our Nats and the Team Trials.  People need to be willing to volunteer their time.  People need to be willing to travel and that will cost either the individuals who volunteer or others who are willing to contribute fairly large sums of money.   People will need to pay for their room and board while doing their volunteer work and that will cost either the volunteers or others who are willing to contribute fairly large sums of money.

In my case, figuring transportations costs (airline travel, rental car), motel room, it costs me about $1,000 to have the privilege to judge the Nats or the Team Trials.  (I have judged at 11 of these events as well as being the ED at the Nats twice and the Team Trials five times.)  Now, not all volunteers need to travel that far and car rental might not be necessary, but there is still a significant out-of-pocket expense in addition to most volunteers have to use vacation time from work to do this job.

Our stunt fliers should feel fortunate that there has been a cadre of people willing to make themselves available to do this job, even though there are often undertones after these events about the quality of judging.  It is for a combination of these reasons that there is not a larger cadre for the Event Directors at these events to choose from.  It does get discouraging at times and I have done my last Nats and Team Trials as a judge for flak that is continually thrown up about how the judging needs to be improved, albeit that some of that nonsense comes from those who do not bother to compete at those levels and really understand little of how the Nats or Team Trials are run and of the efforts made so that the competition field is as level as possible for each individual contestant.

Keith Trostle

[Paul Smith]

The only thing I would like to see to level the field is Judges who don't know the fliers by name. Perhaps collage students who not only can see better and are more suited to stand all day. Maybe collage students from the aeronautical engineering end of the spectrum.

You have a pretty good concept there.  In a large town like Muncie. there must be people who routinely judge springboard diving, gymnastics, figure skating, and other "stunt-like" competitions.  They are AAU-certified and maybe hungry for a few extra bucks in the summer.  Maybe less expensive than the current scheme.

[Bradley Walker]

Yes, that is correct. The judges that will judge the OPEN finals will be selected by a draw.  Once that is completed, the judges that didn't judge the OPEN finals will draw for the Walker Cup flyoff. By definition, there will be different judges for the Walker Cup than the OPEN finals!

Paul W

That sounds kind of AWESOME...

No matter what, THANKS for TRYING to get some randomness into the system. 

Something else too.  I think the judges will appreciate it too.  I might be wrong, but I think the method you are describing for selection is much more fair (luck of the draw is fair IMHO) than basing someone's performance on a measurement system that no really knows how it works, and is subjective at best.

Also, the judges will be free to judge how they want without anyone scrutinizing their performance and holding "graduation" over their heads.  I certainly never agree with the previous system that pretty much encouraged bracketing or "staying close to the mean".  I would really like to see judges that penalize "stinko" maneuvers and reward stellar maneuvers.  Let's see a little movement in those scores!!!

[Clancy Arnold]

Wayne,
Reference your post # 38 above.

I put on over 200 Pine Wood Derby races  for 4000 Cub Scouts in my younger days.  I used a computer scored track that picked the First, Second and Third  car out of each 6 car race.  I used a double elimination system with one additional change.  If the field was less than 72 cars I would take the lower three cars of each first heats and put them into new heats giving a car that was the sixth fastest a chance to still run in the finals if he was against the top cars in his first race.  Never had a complaint in all of the races I officiated.

Would this work at the NATS??

Clancy

[Bill Little]

I hate to say this, but this forum is starting to *sound* like all the others.  Politics, and such types of discussions are not supposed to be going on.

As we have grown, the "flavor" has slowly, almost imperceptibly, changed. 

What about it Sparky?

[peabody]

Hi Bill...
I think it's a good thread...lots of information, very little "sniping", but rather several expressing opinions that are almost always squashed when offered in other formats: good stuff here, form people who have varying views and are civil.

[Doug Moon]

This is not a political nonsense thread.  This is a good dicussion.  Of course there are shots here and there.  I find it interesting. 

[Bradley Walker]

Why would discussing the format of the next Nats be "political"?

We have the opportunity here to understand the Nats seeding process directly from the mouth of the ED of the next Nats.  I myself am grateful for this thread.  I had a lot of misconceptions about how the Nats would be run.  Now I understand.

You have to be careful that *everything* in stunt could be considered "political".

[Ted Fancher]

Paul,
Thanks for sharing your plans. If I understand correctly, it sounds like the Walker Cup flyoff will finally be back the way it should be. 3 nat's champs competeing for the trophy, 1 junior, 1 senior, 1open, 2 flights each, high score wins?

     Arch

Arch,

I know you've been away for a while.  The Walker Flyoff between Jr, Sr and Open Champs has been back to the old format for a number of years now.

Ted

Edit:  Just noted your comment on the number of flights.  The current format has the three champs flying three flights, the best two added together to determine the Walker winner.

[Bill Little]

Doug and Brad,

Yes, this is a good thread.  So far it has been civil.  But, Sparky INTENTIONALLY began this particular internet forum/board to NOT be like any of the others.  A place to discuss stunt models and nothing more.  I know that would get VERY boring to many, but then the NATS discussions are VERY boring To many many more who do not, nor ever will, fly in the NATS.  This also applies to rules discussions, and other things applying to an event and not models. 

What I am saying here is that the original intent of the board was not to discuss these matters, they are cussed and discussed on other sites ad nauseum.  This place was intended to stay away from all the *garbage* out in cyberspace, be NON political and deal only with models. 

I know that as the membership has grown, more and more topics that were, at first not allowed, have become popular.   So it's just time to sit back and re-evaluate the board's position.  Does the admin want this to become just another site?  I don't know, that's why the question to Sparky.

A vast majority of this board's members could live the rest of their lives and never mention the NATS, rules, or anything else of such nature.  Those subjects, like I said, can be hashed out (until deleted) on other sites.  I am just wondering if Sparky is thinking that the wishes of a few are what he wants to run the forum.  I am just the "hired help" who's salary is twice what it was when all this started!   (2 X 0=0 )

I am a member (at least for now) of the PAMPA EC, so all of this is something I can do elsewhere.  Does the majority of the members here want to hear it?

[Bradley Walker]

What I am saying here is that the original intent of the board was not to discuss these matters, they are cussed and discussed on other sites ad nauseum.  This place was intended to stay away from all the *garbage* out in cyberspace, be NON political and deal only with models. 

I took my board down, and I do not go to SSW.  Why?  Because it is *moderated* on the bias.  They do not run that board from a neutral perspective.  It is a board that is openly hostile to "agitators".  The only guy I see "sniping" or using inflammatory PERSONAL language to describe people who they do not agree on this thread are the same guys who post on SSW and do the same thing there.

I also do not belong to PAMPA because it is basically the same people who populate SSW, so what now?

I think this is a great board, but I dot not understand the entire idea of people protesting what is discussed. 

You have to ask yourself, where does that come from?  It is certainly not the way I was raised.  If you do not like a thread don't friggin read it.  That is the way it is done here *in America*.  Stopping people from discussing things you do not like is more like the USSR or Communist China.

Discussing the Nats format is not POLITICS.  PAMPA is politics.  This is the EVENT for goodness sake!!!

[Bill Little]

I took my board down, and I do not go to SSW.  I also do not belong to PAMPA, so what now?

I think this is a great board.  I do not understand the entire idea of people protesting what is discussed.  If you do not like a thread don't friggin read it.  That is the way it is done here in America.  Stopping from discussing things you do not like is the USSR or Communist China.

Discussing the Nats format is not POLITICS.  PAMPA is politics.  This is the EVENT for goodness sake!!!

"I took my board down, and I do not go to SSW.  I also do not belong to PAMPA, so what now?"

 
I cannot answer that question for you.  I know that I have been charged to do a job, and I have done so without complaint from the OWNER (only one that matters).  Maybe you need to start you own board back up if you want to discuss what isn't allowed here.  I would be more than happen to join and contribute.

The EVENT was not the reason Sparky started this board.  Your view of what is or isn't politics, or what is or isn't allowed for discussion actually means no more than Joe Shmoe's opinion, OR MINE!.  There is no open area of discussion for what is or is not allowed.  if that is "UN_American" as you insinuate (BTW: the USSR has been gone quite a while LOL!!), well then tell that to Sparky, the guy who set up, maintains and pays for *his* board.  This really a Private Club, members are "allowed" to belong and must be approved.  Also, they can be dropped, banned, put on restriction, etc., all by the decisions of the owner. That actually changes things, even in the leagal arena.

I didn't ask you, I asked Sparky.  If I sound harsh here, it is because we have experienced quite a long time of pretty decent harmony here, following the rules that Sparky told ME to follow.  You have ideas that have merit.  I do not contradict that.  I enjoy a good debate with you and Doug or anyone else, but I am remembering what I was told when this all started.  If we open the door in one are, how do we bolt it in another area?

Sparky actually has pulled HIS OWN posts in the past as have I.

This isn't personal, Brad.  I really doubt that you are any more, if as much, patriotic as I am.  I believe in Freedom of Speech.  I just need clarification from the only person who's opinion actually matters in this case.  Since he made me second in command of the entire site, made me the moderator here in this section, and told me to delete what I needed to (with no questions asked), AND I know he has been out of town attending to his Mother who is passing, I am simply asking his guidance on this.

So refrain from making those wild statements about not reading posts, USSR, China, etc., it's not your decision to make.  Otherwise, I will not need his guidance to hit the delete button!


So far, I see this thread as educational in nature and possibly answering questions that are important to a minuscule part of the membership here.  So it is still up.  If Sparky says otherwise, I will "can it" in a heart beat.

You were not here at the start (or more importantly in the planning stages) so you are not privy to WHY the board exists.  It was not begun to just be another SSW or otherwise.  So, believe me, I am not disturbed in the slightest with your posts.  You know full well I would say so if I were.

BTW: How are the handles coming along?

Respectfully,
Bill Little <><

[Doug Moon]

 
I didn't ask you, I asked Sparky.  If I sound harsh here, it is because we have experienced quite a long time of pretty decent harmony here, following the rules that Sparky told ME to follow.  You have ideas that have merit.  I do not contradict that.  I enjoy a good debate with you and Doug or anyone else, but I am remembering what I was told when this all started.  If we open the door in one are, how do we bolt it in another area?
Respectfully,
Bill Little <><

Well then I respectfully ask you if you didnt want the input o fthe masses why you chose to ask Sparky about pulling a trhead or topic in an open forum?

Why do you keep commenting to me and Brad.  We arent taking this poilitical at any point.  I might attend the nats this year and this is helpful. 

Others have made plenty of little side comments all throghout this thread and the one on number of judges.  Take it up with them.  Leave me out.

I fully understand this is Sparky's site and what he wants on it is his business and he fully has that right.  Remove it or whatever but I made no political posts in this thread and no one else did that I can see.  Just a few comments here and there.  This is the stunt community you know.  Comments are a plenty.  Not always welcomed but they are plenty.

[Bradley Walker]

Hey, its Sparky's board... obviously, he can do whatever he wants.

It's just my 2 cents.

[Bradley Walker]

Why do you keep commenting to me and Brad.  We arent taking this poilitical at any point.  I might attend the nats this year and this is helpful. 

Word.

I am thinking of attending the Nats also, *BECAUSE* Paul is changing the format...

[Bill Little]

Why do you keep commenting to me and Brad.  We arent taking this poilitical at any point.  I might attend the nats this year and this is helpful.

" keep commenting to me and Brad"  ??

Simply because at the time I went to reply, you and Brad had commented to what I said, that's all.

You are completely right.  It has not really become "political" but that doesn't mean it won't. 

I Put it in the open so that everyone COULD see it.  We did not start this foreum/board to eve discuss these types of topics.   That is fact, so I stated something to remind is a somewhat subtle way.  You and Brad commented, that's all, so I called your name.  I have no quarrel with either of you , as you know.  So, let's leave it that way!  Things have a way of breeding drama for some reason.  Rules are rules.  We can abide by them, or change them, either way suits me!

[frank williams]

Paul

If we seed ….  then there should be a seeding procedure.

I guess sometimes that I have the feeling that, maybe in an effort to “balance” the circles, seeding takes place to a much lower level than I think it should be, and is done in a somewhat subjective manner.  Suppose it comes down to …. a concionous decision being made on whether to put me and Howard on the same circle …. “Well lets put Frank over on this circle and Howard on that one …. Now lets move Chris over here and John here….. now they all look about even”.  … Wrong.  I’d like to see the procedure.  Do it by the numbers.  Those not seeded would be assigned to the four circles by random draw.  It shouldn’t take more than 30 minutes to accomplish and can be done in the open.  Not only can be accomplished in the open but should be accomplished in the open.

3 pts for being in the top five last year
2pts for being in the top five two years ago.
1 pt for being in the top five three years ago.
3pts for being on current US WC team.
2pts for being on last US WC team .
everyone else 0 pts

Archie Bellcrank 22 pts
Bernie Bellcrank 21 pts
Carl Bellcrank 21 pts
David Bellcrank 19 pts
Earle Bellcrank 18 pts ……..
..
..


Cricle 1 Archie
Circle 2 Carl    ------ tied pts random draw between Bernie and Carl for circle
Circle 3 Bernie
Circle 4 David

Circle 1 Earle
Circle2 ….

This actually might turn out just like what would be accomplished without a procedure … but done by a written procedure it will leave no one with the chance for any complaint.

[Bradley Walker]

What Frank said...

That Frank Williams is smaaaaaaaaaaart.

[Doug Moon]

Frank,

It could be even easier.  You could look at last years nats placings 1-20.  

Move down the list splitting out the top 12 from the year prior to each of the four circles in use. 1 to 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3, 4 to 4, 5 to 1, 6 to 2, 7 to 3, 8 to 4, and so on.  If someone is not present then you move the next person down show is present.  Until you have seeded up the top 12 across four circles.  Then the rest fall where they may.  

That would be pretty fair I think.  Just my 2 cents.

[Bradley Walker]

Doug and I worked this out once as he described.

I think Frank's point about *whatever* you do to seed, do it in the open.

[RC Storick]

As I see it ,as long as this thread takes no undertones of mallice it can go on. The Nat's is STUNT!

[Dick Fowler]

I'm not sure how well a volunteer judging group would do at something as important as the NATS. The rules are numerous and even seasoned judges have a different interpretation of some of the same rules and which rule should apply to a specific situation. I think a good indication of what I'm getting to is the wide ranging opinions of appropriate decisions in some of the judging threads on SSW. If people who fly and are familiar with the pattern can't agree, then people with no experience are definitely going to have a problem. If I were NATS caliber, I wouldn't want some rookie deciding my scores... I don't think they have the background to do a good job. JMHO

[Ted Fancher]

  I THOUGHT his name was Dennis???  I am the only Denny posting on this forum that I know of MR  Trostle.  Therefore it is natural that I thought  that I might be blamed for some statements in your petty little thread.   
tripple Sheesh to you too.

  Marvin DENNY

Marvin,

I beg you to lighten up on this.  Please go back and check Denny(is) Adamisin's posts on this thread and you'll note that at the bottom of each is his "signature" comment or whatever it's called.  Specifically, it says "aka Denny".  I've known him for decades, always called him Denny and always will because he's just a kid ... well, almost.

I call my friends by either their first name or, if I use their last name, preceded by a title, i.e. Mr., Dr., Captain, etc.  It would never occur to me to address you as "Denny" because I consider you a friend and wouldn't denigrate that relationship with a demeaning form of address.

Ted

[Paul Walker]

Certainly a good start and we agree (obviously) about the flyer seeding in the qualifying rounds.

I would, however, encourage you to reconsider the random selection of judges for later rounds for the following reason.  Can you imagine the hue and cry from predictable vocal sources if one of your volunteer judges (oh, just for an example, Ted Fancher) is randomly assigned to judge the Top Five and/or Walker Flyoff?  Especially if the competitors include names like David Fitzgerald, Brett Buck, Phil Granderson or, in the Walker Flyoff, Paul Ferrell?

What the agitators fail to recognize is that avoiding such assignments to the greatest degree possible is one of the primary functions of the judge seeding process at the Nats. Although I've no problem with flying before a randomly selected group of judges, I would, frankly, prefer "NOT" to be put in such a position as a judge.  The reasons are too obvious to waste time on.

 I would be perfectly happy to accept an assignment to judge other than the top twenty or finals day if doing so would make your life easier.

Ted 


I have spent a little time thinking about this, in between everything else, and would pose the following option:  PRIOR to the draw for the judges, I would ask if there is any judge who would like to opt OUT of judging the remaining flights, for what ever reason, including having helped that flier work on his pattern in the last 2 months. I believe this would solve your dilemma.

However, flying in front of a judge that is "familiar" to you has been and probably always will continue to be the case. Our event is so small, and this will continue to happen. Having said that, I have no problem with you judging them as I fully believe you will be totally objective with them. I have been there as well. I judged at the 2001 Team Trials and judged Howard, who I fly with regularly.  No one even batted an eye that I am aware of. Yes, the small difference is that the few individuals you are talking about are sure contenders, and Howard was a dark horse at that time (although he showed something more at the last TT's).  I feel that you being there is no problem if it is the pure luck of the draw. The difference is that you would not be accused of being placed there on purpose to better someone's placing.

I think I will give any judge the option of bowing out before the draw if they feel uncomfortable.

Paul Walker

[Howard Rush]

I would guess that a significant fraction of the population of Muncie is in jail.  A couple dozen trusties would probably be happy to spend a few days in the summer sunshine for just a few ounces of weed.  

[Howard Rush]

I judged at the 2001 Team Trials and judged Howard, who I fly with regularly.  No one even batted an eye that I am aware of. Yes, the small difference is that the few individuals you are talking about are sure contenders, and Howard was a dark horse at that time (although he showed something more at the last TT's).  I feel that you being there is no problem if it is the pure luck of the draw. The difference is that you would not be accused of being placed there on purpose to better someone's placing.

I think I will give any judge the option of bowing out before the draw if they feel uncomfortable.

Paul Walker

I might note that Mr. Walker did sorta quarantine me before the 2001 TT.  We flew together, but he refrained from giving me flying or trimming advice for a month or two before the event.

[Paul Smith]

I would guess that a significant fraction of the population of Muncie is in jail.  A couple dozen trusties would probably be happy to spend a few days in the summer sunshine for just a few ounces of weed.  

Howard, if you would dig a little deeper you would see that most of the people doing hard time in Muncie prisons are former sports officials who manipulated high school  basketball, fiddled with ice dancing team trials, and came up with the wrong winners at AMA events.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Paul & Howard:
Actually some of the inmates choose prison when they heard that their alternative "community service" would be to judge at NATs events!         

[Dennis Adamisin]

...check Denny(is) Adamisin's posts on this thread and you'll note that at the bottom of each is his "signature" comment or whatever it's called.  Specifically, it says "aka Denny".  I've known him for decades, always called him Denny and always will because he's just a kid ... well, almost.

Ted

GOD BLESS YA TED! 

Where else but amongst my birth family and my CLPA family can a 53yo white haired arthritic prone man be called "kid" - NO WONDER I'm hangin with the hanger boyz! 

BTW I changed my signature and added the aka AS A RESULT OF THIS THREAD! 

Maybe you guys have heard this story about the old baseball manager Sparky Anderson.  Like any old manager he had his share of "conversations" with umpires.  There was one Ump who insisted on addressing him by his real name of George. Why - "Because I refuse to call a 60 yo man SPARKY!"      

[Ted Fancher]

GOD BLESS YA TED! 

snip

BTW I changed my signature and added the aka AS A RESULT OF THIS THREAD! 

snip

Ooops.

In that case I owe Marvin an apology. 

I just went back and reviewed your posts after seeing Marvin's and saw the "aka" at the end of each.

At any rate, Merry Christmas to both Denny and Marvin.

Ted

[john e. holliday]

Hey Dennis are we really getting that old?  DOC Holliday

[Dave Adamisin]

Hi guys. Be nice to my bro Dennis: aka Denny today as he had surgery today. And by the way I had a nice conversation about Foxes (go figure) the other day with the real Denny: aka Marvin. Be nice to him too.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Ooops.

In that case I owe Marvin an apology. 

I just went back and reviewed your posts after seeing Marvin's and saw the "aka" at the end of each.

At any rate, Merry Christmas to both Denny and Marvin.

Ted

Ted:
I noticed that too.  Apparently when you change your signature here it changes it in ALL the posts you ever made - even the old ones.  It also changes it in the messages stored in the my Inbox & Outbox.  That's a long way of saying you were miss-led into thinking my signature was always that way. 

As for Marv, I wrote and told him I was going to call him Mr DENNIS!      (but its still cooler to call him BigIron)


Doc
We might be growing old (beats the alternative), but I REFUSE to grow up.  Heck Ted still calls me a KID! 

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the great LOL.

There may be a little "sad but true" in that one! 
 

Paul & Howard:
Actually some of the inmates choose prison when they heard that their alternative "community service" would be to judge at NATs events!         

[Bill Little]

Denny Adamisin:
"Doc
We might be growing old (beats the alternative), but I REFUSE to grow up.  Heck Ted still calls me a KID! "

Heck Dennis, compared to Ted, you ARE still a kid!

[Paul Smith]

Paul & Howard:
Actually some of the inmates choose prison when they heard that their alternative "community service" would be to judge at NATs events!         

Gopod point, Dennis.  Maybe those who want to judge need to be investigated in depth.

But seriously, stunt is a rich event to be in a position of needing 8-to-12 good judges and actually be able to discuss selecting them, rather than just finding them.   In all the other events at the Nats, you can walk in, sit down and start scoring without giving your name.

[Ted Fancher]

"You're kidding, right?"

No.  Calculate for me the probability of that skew happening.  Then calculate the effect on the 20-21 divide.  This can be calculated.  The crude analysis above convinced me that, for that case, the effect of seeding is negligible.  You won't convince me otherwise by arm waving. 

Oh, Howard,

I don't wave my arms, I just respond to multiple decades of exposure to the Nats CLPA process.  If you don't believe there have been years when there were complaints about tough and easy circles, I can't convince you by either saying so or waving my arms.  I think the whole reason for seeding has to do with "appearances" as stressed by Mr. "X" in an earlier post. There will always be a group for whom any work done by those foolish enough to work so they can play will be construed as being done for ulterior purposes. (For instance, the only defensible reason for dropping the high and low scores is the same dang thing, to assuage the appearance of the potential for impropriety, notwithstanding the fact that doing so might very well throw out "better" judges than it leaves in). 

It goes on and on.  I think a large part of my current lack of enthusiasm for the event is the result of whiners who are concerned about the "appearance of impropriety".  I've seen too many people work way too hard and get trashed for that work.  The vast majority of that hard work they do (beyond just the grunt work of standing in the weather all day or pounding out thousands of score sheets) is the result of nothing more than trying to eliminate the perceptions of impropriety.  Clearly, a task for the Gods and not mere mortals as repeated threads such as this demonstrate.

Believe me, the administrators did not undertake the "selection" of flyers and/or judges because they had run short of "stuff" to fill their leisurely days at the Nats/Team Trials.  Again, what most of the conspiracy theorists fail to recognize is that the individuals willing to actually work their butts off to put these events on have no underlying motive to make their jobs even harder and more susceptible to criticism (no matter what decisions they make).  You need no better example than Paul's decision to eliminate judge selection in response to the complaints of a small but vocal minority of individuals who don't even compete in the Nats on a regular basis.  Hopefully, prior to making that decision he discussed the pros and cons with previous administrators who, for some reason, found the selection process to be of value.

The fact is that there have been years when competitors "perceived" that their ability to qualify for the next level of competition was compromised by  "uneven" balance in the circles (often combined with the assumption that judges purposely score certain individuals higher or lower based on who they are  rather than how they fly).  I didn't make this up.  The reality is that the only reason the seeding process exists (which is a lot of extra work for those that work) is because of such complaints.  Of course, no good deed goes unpunished thus, here we are again.

Your "mathematical model" may be 100 percent correct about the probability of a dozen "name" flyers ending up on one of four circles.  The reality is that it "could" happen and if steps aren't taken to avoid that possibility (however mathmatically remote), there will be more complaints -- they'll just be different. Shoot, there already have been on numerous occasions.  Trust me on this one.  (And remember, it doesn't take a dozen "stars" per circle, only five -- or four if you end up no 6)

If, as you declared to have proven, the differences in outcome are minor, with or without seeding, and, whereas, the lack of procedures to avoid the unlikely probability of unbalance historically result in accusations of dishonesty and/or unfairness, why in the world would you not prefer that the process be conducted so as to eliminate to the greatest degree possible the rancor associated with the accusations of unfairness?

Tell you what, I'll stop "waving my arms" if you'll climb down from your Ivory Number Tower into the real world of stunt.  The only thing remotely "number related" in stunt is the scores.  Everything else about it is subjective (including the source of those numbers) ... and by virtue of being so, driven by emotion rather than objectivity.

The thankless task of our administrators has more to do with mollifying emotions than with complex, but ultimately superfluous, ivory tower numbers.

Ted

Edited for grammar and to remove some unwarranted acrimony.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Thinking this thing through in a historical sense, CLPA at the NATs has evolved to where it has today NOT to become better at choosing the Champion, but rather to make the competition more accessible to more people - These are an abridged history of things I have witnessed, and in a couple cases help cause.  I have likely flossed a few details but the big picture is pretty accurate:

Used to be you showed up at the NATs, put in for a flight then flew, repeated it a second time and took your best score.  Problem is NO ONE wanted to fly first, so nothing happened in the first round until maybe 10am and the second round would cut off around 5PM sometimes with people still waiting to fly.

Logical course was to draw for flight order.  So now everyone got their flights but some "...got the short end of a long ping-pong ball"  And truth is in a long days flying it WAS hard for judges to stay focused too.  Also, your whole years preparation and trip across country came down to 2 flights (or less) in one day.

Next logical progression was to expand to a qualifications/finals format, then a qualifications/semifinals/finals format to give more people a chance at more flights and to NOT toast our now volunteer judges under the sun all day.  In fact it rarely went as late as 2pm.  But some folks noticed "Gee, if I'd only been on that OTHER circle I could made the Semi's  and then...?  Event administrators took on the task to SEED the qualifying circles.  Proponents cited that it made the semifinals (top 20) more accessible to the most people.  Critics claim it causes bias.  Statiticians claim neither exists - probably all three POV's have merit. 

Meanwhile, at local meets, the idea of Skill groups began to take root, and seems to have really taken hold.  Fliers can get their feet wet, then a toe hold as they advance through the ranks to the level their ability and commitment can take them.  The new attitude is "Gee, I'd like to go to the NATs but I don't want to be the champ, I just want to fly."  So now officially and unofficially we got skill classes and OTS & Classic and... etc  all flying at the NATs.

What is significant about many of these stages is that  it has made it easier for the non-champs to participate.  Attendance and interest in the NATs proves that is a GOOD thing.  Now more than ever the NATs is THE CONVENTION for CLPA.  However maybe ENOUGH has been done for the whole, almost NONE of them have been done to improve the selection of the Champion.

Like all PAMPA Presidents before and after me, I believe in promoting the general well-being of CLPA at all levels.  History shows that has been done about as completely as possible - participantion is strong and we are now drawing more model businesses interest in what we do and they are responding with new product.

Paul W has published "THE PLAN" & I think it can select the correct NATs champion - I have no quarrels with it.

Howard R says his  mathematical model "proves" that seeding doesn't matter - history shows that is incorrect based one what HAS HAPPENED in the past; STATISICALLY that lesson may or may not be re-learned in the future.  It is ironic that BOTH the proponents & opponents of seeding can claim "fairness"  to a degree both are correct.  So the question of seeding really boils down to how much do we care about 6th -xx place versus the perception of bias?

Personally I believe the "cream rises to the top" and that seeding has not determined the Champion, probably not the top 3 or 5 either.  Those who claim seeding causes bias would probably disagree.  However, to claim seeding causes bias is to put an asterisk next to every champion's name since... 1974(?).

[Howard Rush]

I dug up the old Monte Carlo thing I did.  I found a mistake, reran it, and confirmed that seeding makes an insignificant difference in whether the 20th-best guy makes the top 20.  Mind you, this is for the method used in the 2003 Nats and maybe other recent Nats, where contestants were split into two groups.  The top 10 from each of these groups comprised the top 20.  I described the method of my program awhile back.  I ran it with and without the top eight seeded.  The top eight always qualify.  The outcome for the 20th- and 21st-best guys was as follows for 100,000 Nats:

The 20th-best guy made the top 20 56,241 times with no seeding.
The 20th-best guy made the top 20 55,549 times with seeding.
The 21st-best guy made the top 20 44,016 times with no seeding.
The 21st-best guy made the top 20 41,113 times with seeding.

Mean placing in his circle for the 20th-best guy is 10.25 with no seeding, 10.32 with seeding.
Mean placing in his circle for the 21st-best guy is 10.74 with no seeding, 10.80 with seeding.

Standard deviation in placing in his circle for the 20th-best guy is 1.586 places with no seeding, 1.35 with seeding.
Standard deviation in placing in his circle for the 21st-best guy is 1.585 places with no seeding, 1.38 with seeding.

I had to look up the definition of standard deviation.  The above may actually be a normalized standard deviation.  I divided the number I got from the definition by 100,000.

I then changed the program to consider the 2008 Nats method of dividing flyers into four groups, which may be akin to the situation Dennis (53?!) mentioned.  In this scheme, the top five from each circle advance to the finals.  I ran it with and without seeding the top 12 flyers.  Again I looked at the fate of the 20th- and 21st-best flyers:

In 50,000 Nats:

The 20th-best guy made the top 20 26,768 times with no seeding.
The 20th-best guy made the top 20 25,034 times with seeding.
The 21st-best guy made the top 20 23,109 times with no seeding.
The 21st-best guy made the top 20 20,396 times with seeding.

Mean placing in his circle for the 20th-best guy is 5.39 with no seeding, 5.55 with seeding.
Mean placing in his circle for the 21st-best guy is 5.62 with no seeding, 5.78 with seeding.

Standard deviation in placing in his circle for the 20th-best guy is 1.338 places with no seeding, .966 with seeding.
Standard deviation in placing in his circle for the 21st-best guy is 1.333 places with no seeding, 1.003 with seeding.

I'm sorry I don't know how to include these data as tables.  I'll try to attach the file and maybe the histograms.  I'll post this on SSW, too. 

Seeding doesn't do what I thought it would: namely, to affect the placing of the marginal guys.  The four-group scenario is kinda interesting.  Sigma for the 20th-best guy goes down with seeding, but seeding decreases his probability of making the finals.  Looking at the histogram, I figure that this is because without seeding, sometimes the 20th-best guy can place as high as first (just .1% of the time) in his circle, but with seeding, he's limited to only fourth or fifth.  I'm not sure who seeding helps or hurts, let alone whether it helps or hinders fairness. 

Keith Trostle pointed out a different reason for seeding, which may suffice to justify it 

[Bradley Walker]

It goes on and on.  I think a large part of my current lack of enthusiasm for the event is the result of whiners who are concerned about the "appearance of impropriety".  I've seen too many people work way too hard and get trashed for that work. 

I don't see anyone here whining about what Paul is doing.

It is hard to argue with a man's methods in the case of the "appearance of impropriety" if it done out in the open, in front of God and everybody...

[peabody]

I think that it still leaves too much to those doing the seeding, especially if they chose to seed beyond the first 5-10....

It might be considered an "honorarium" if those finishing in the top 5 in Open were seeded......but there can be no scientific or even justifiable reason for seeding throughout the field.

I find it laughable, too, that many who are justifying seeding denied that it was taking place at all just a few years ago.

[Dick Fowler]

From a non-participant's point of view, I believe seeding is appropriate and necessary.

From a "level playing field" perspective, it seems to me that seeding does exactly that... for probably the first twenty best fliers (depending on the number of circles). For Joe average it doesn't affect them much either way and they wouldn't benefit from seeding... as Howard has shown. However there is an exception. The whining would come from both groups if the luck of the draw put much more than five top fliers in any group. Top guy number six is mad and all of the lower ranked guys are mad because they feel that they were effectively blocked from moving on... nobody is happy!

Howard, I wonder how much the outcome of your program is skewed by one of your assumptions. "I did a simulation. I assumed 40 contestants. They were assigned at random to four circles in the 2003 Nats Wednesday-Thursday format. I ranked the contestants and assumed that a higher-ranked contestant would always place higher than a lower-ranked contestant. I did 10,000 runs with and without seeding the top eight to see how many times the 20th-ranked contestant would make the top 20 and how many times the 21st-ranked contestant would make the top 20. Here is the upchuck:"

 As we all know, every now and then somebody pulls one out of their posterior and screws up the whole analysis deal! But even under that scenario, the only guys really affected by a stellar performance from a average guy would be the fifth and lower ranked fliers in that circle if seeded. So in my mind, seeding can help but never hurts... so why not seed?

The real analysis in my mind should be the probability of a circle having more top fliers than the number that will move on, and the bigger question is what method is used to determine the ranking for purposes of seeding.

[john e. holliday]

I wasn't going to jump on this as I do not fly in the top echelon of NATS stunt competition.  I fly the event as I like the people and it gives me a contest to go to locally.  But, it seems the ones that are doing the complaining about how the NATS  is run have not been to a NATS lately.  I don't hear the top people complaining about how the NATS is run.  Seems the top 5 fly and do the best they can with the conditions of the time.  But, it would be great if one year we had a NATS with the 5 mph breeze blowing away from the sun and a set of judges that could care less about who is on the handle or what the airplane looks like.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Alan Hahn]

Oh I thought I'd just add to the noise level here!

[Bill Little]

The last time I was able to actually fly in the NATS, seeding was used.  I thought nothing of it.  It's the way it is.

Maybe it's because I was a coach at a pretty high level for 30 plus years and have become accustomed to playing the game as and where we had to play it.  Might be a wet field, might be below freezing, might be a heat index over 100, etc., you just have to prepare the best you can, perform the best you can, and let the chips fall.

When I return to flying at the NATS, I will not let seeding affect my decision to do so at all.  I do not see (nor have I ever seen) a problem with seeding.