(clip)
I also believe that seeding the flyers places a significant bias on the outcome.....
I also believe that seeding the flyers places a significant bias on the outcome.....
Sorry Rich, you got history PROVING this wrong.
You are an engineer. You should know that...
I don't believe in the seeding process. I'd like to see it eliminated. It has no effect on who is going to win, the only ones affected are those few new faces that might end up in the top 20. Putting some different names on that list will not change who wins or damage the event but it might just inspire some of those first timers to work a little harder. Let's face it gang, second place is the first loser. After first place, nothing else matters. If you didn't fly well enough to win, why would it matter if you made the top 20 or not?
Arch
Come now, Ted, show me how seeding could make any perceptible difference in who crosses the 20-21 divide.
Keith, Denny, et all.
Ted, I do not know where you pulled up my name from all this argument!! I have not (nor I EVER have) complained or harped the "seeding". Please keep my name out of it.
Marvin Denny
Come now, Ted, show me how seeding could make any perceptible difference in who crosses the 20-21 divide.
Keith, Denny, et all.
Ted, I do not know where you pulled up my name from all this argument!! I have not (nor I EVER have) complained or harped the "seeding". Please keep my name out of it.
Marvin Denny
Marvin, meet Denny Adamisin. Denny, meet Marvin Denny.
Sheeeeeesh.
Ted
Keith, Denny, et all.
Ted, I do not know where you pulled up my name from all this argument!! I have not (nor I EVER have) complained or harped the "seeding". Please keep my name out of it.
Marvin Denny
Hi Marvin Denny,
I have not refered to you or your name anywhere in this thread. If you will notice Dennis Adamisin has posted on this thread. Ted was addressing his remarks to Dennis Adamisin, not you, Marvin Denny. Furthermore, Ted would not refer to you by only your last name in this context. Your name has been kept "out of it" until you interjected it.
Double sheesh
Keith Trostle
As I am running the 2008 NATs, I can tell you what IS going to happen.
The qualifying rounds WILL be seeded so that all the top fliers are not on circle A and all the Bellcrank family is not on circle B. They will be distributed evenly. After the qualifying rounds are completed, the top 20 pilots will gather to draw circle order for the semi finals. Once the circle assignments are drawn, then the flight order will be drawn. So before the pilots leave the field Wednesday, they will know their assignments for Thursday. Then the judges will draw for their circle assignments as well. Note that the fliers and the judges will be the ones drawing the numbers, not the ED. When Thursday's flying is completed, the process will repeat for the finals, flight order and judging assignments. After the Open finals are done, the process is repeated for the Walker Cup Flyoff.
That's as random as I believe it should be. I fully believe that the top 20 is important enough to many of these fliers that have put up their time and money to get there that we should make sure they have a "fair" chance and not be hurt by a "bad" draw, so seeding the qualifying rounds will eliminate the "bad draw" issue. Bad wind, rain, earthquakes, tornado's, engine runs, etc, don't complain to me, complain upstairs.
How are you assigning judges for the later rounds?
Hi Marvin Denny,
I have not refered to you or your name anywhere in this thread. If you will notice Dennis Adamisin has posted on this thread. Ted was addressing his remarks to Dennis Adamisin, not you, Marvin Denny. Furthermore, Ted would not refer to you by only your last name in this context. Your name has been kept "out of it" until you interjected it.
Double sheesh
Keith Trostle
I don't believe in the seeding process. I'd like to see it eliminated. It has no effect on who is going to win, the only ones affected are those few new faces that might end up in the top 20. Putting some different names on that list will not change who wins or damage the event but it might just inspire some of those first timers to work a little harder. Let's face it gang, second place is the first loser. After first place, nothing else matters. If you didn't fly well enough to win, why would it matter if you made the top 20 or not?
Arch
How are you assigning judges for the later rounds?
As I stated.....
Then the judges will draw for their circle assignments as well. Note that the fliers and the judges will be the ones drawing the numbers, not the ED. When Thursday's flying is completed, the process will repeat for the finals, flight order and judging assignments. After the Open finals are done, the process is repeated for the Walker Cup Flyoff.
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
Apples vs Oranges but I learned a lesson as a youth that stuck with me. As a cub scout I participated in pinewood derby contests. Some of you guys may have as well. The "lesson" came after I was too old to compete but went to a regional meet to just watch. Standard double elimination event. As I watched not only the heats but the charts I had one of those epiphany moments. The fastest car, barring some disaster, was going to get first place. The second fastest car, barring some disaster, would end up in second place losing only one heat to the fastest car. Placement after that was something of a toss up. Depending on the line up, the size of the field, and where the cars were slotted, the third, fourth, or fifth fastest cars(etc) could easily have been eliminated from having faced both the fastest and second fastest cars as they progressed across the charts. Isn't seeeding supposed to help offset this kind of skewing? Isn't it supposed to help insure that the top field of contestants is the top field?
Howard....
To throw the anal retentive a one, but keep some randomness what about seeding, say, the top eight from last year's Nats?
Advanced should be real easy to seed....the Expert flyers ahead of the Advanced bunch.
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.
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
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..
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.
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,
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
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. 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 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 <><
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.
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.
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
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 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.
...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! BW@
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
Paul & Howard:
Actually some of the inmates choose prison when they heard that their alternative "community service" would be to judge at NATs events! HB~> VD~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Denny Adamisin:
"Doc
We might be growing old (beats the alternative), but I REFUSE to grow up. Heck Ted still calls me a KID! #^ "
Paul & Howard:
Actually some of the inmates choose prison when they heard that their alternative "community service" would be to judge at NATs events! HB~> VD~ LL~ LL~ LL~
"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.
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 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.
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 think Ted has hit the nail on the head on this one. Not seeding, and going ahead with the contest when 5-10 of the historically very best flyers all land in the same qualifying circle, is exceeding unfair to them. Seeding a dozen or so of the historically best flyers, especially using some sort of points system based on recent history suggested elsewhere, is a much better proposition. The seeding may switch the finish order of a few flyers around the 20th spot for qualifying, but that at best is unfair to one flyer, not 4 or 5, or even possibly more.
Balderdash. Ted is saying, using red letters as the hammer with which to hit the nail, that my analysis is wrong because, although the contestant assignment to groups is random, I assumed deterministic contestant placing. I take it that he thinks that randomizing the placing sequence enhances the effect of seeding.
There is the case of good flyers piling up on one circle. Intuitively, you'd think that the effect would be greatest to the 20th-best flyer. Seeding actually hurts his chances, although very slightly. Seeding does have an effect a little farther up the ladder. It helps ensure that a flyer at my level (10th to 13th) makes the top 20, but, curiously, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not such a flyer is among the seeds.
So let's see some math. I know you got it in you.
Hi Howard. After thinking about your analysis, I think your assumption would be valid for your method. I considered that the ranking would have to be based on some sort of statistical analysis. This ranking then servers to "predict" the relative placement of the contestant at the end of the contest. So if a contestant is ranked in the 50th percentile then statistically (assuming a large enough number of data points were used) it would be expected that within some reasonable range, that guy would land on his midpoint most of the time with a bellcurve distribution around his respective finishing position. So if all participants have sufficient data points (contest finishes, NATS placement,competition against the field, etc.) then it should be reasonable to statistically predict the final postion of each contestant... they finish where they are ranked with a normal distribution about their own "ranked" position. I think your analysis shows this... I don't know if it really speaks to seeding though.
So in my mind, this analysis works better if all the contestants have flown against each other and the more times they fly against the field the better the "ranking becomes". Ranking is based on the guys skill level against the field. If he hasn't flown against this group then the errors start to creep in.
Using random circle selection with good ranking would have the 20th guy finishing on average, 20th most of the time, but... statistically he will also finish 1st and also last sometimes with these finishes following the usual bell curve. As I see it, seeding causes a narrowing the curve and increasing the height of this curve. So with seeding, the number 20 guy will now finish 20th a a much greater frequency than with random selection. Every split of the field increases the chances of random selection stacking some given circle to the point that the flyers ranked lower than the number chosen to advance (seems like five has been the magic number) will never finish according to their ranking. I think all that happens is that the make up of a seeded circle more reasonably reflects the normal skill levels of the entire field even though it has been split. One circle is the ideal situation and the addition of more circles starts to introduce this error that random selection "can" create. I haven't modeled this... and even if I figure it out, I'm not really driven to do it! JMHO.
(clip)
This has been in my head for a number of years. That being trying to define a criteria that I could plug into a computer so that it reviews the data, and then selects the best judges. I can't come up with that, and so far, no one else has either.
(clip)
Paul Walker
Keith,
Can you explain something in your post please.
(clip)
I for one surely dont see a shadow or a cloud cast over the past 30 years of nats. Making a change to a future event has nothing to do with the past events. I have flown in the nats 8 times, 7 of them in row. I surely felt I got a fair shake at the ones I attended. To say PW is placing a cloud or shadow over those events is not fair to him or his efforts to run the nats. He is volunteering his time and vacation to do such a task as are many others. I for one appreciate the work they do even when I dont go to the nats I still appreciate because it keeps the event alive.
Keith, could you explain the process used in previous years to select judges for the finals. Was it free from personal bias by those who did the selection?
I would think random selection has significant merit and would preclude any sort of "conspiracy nonsense". To those who express discontent you simply say..."Hey, that's the luck of the draw!" A rather simple yet elegant solution.
A point most should remember is that CLPA is not a mandatory activity! No one is forced to ever compete, much less attend a NATS as a competitor! The process is spelled out, and it is the same for all. If an individual does not agree with the process, then they can opt to exercise their personal right of not participating!
167 comments and 2071 viewing on two forums. If all these people flew, they'd need eight circles and 24 judges.
HMMM How so ? Out of viewings and postings, I fine only 40 individuals posting, and of that number some are not even AMA members and others do not attend the nationals I would say four judges and two circles could handle everything and still have time for several breaks. The viewers is even more skewed as most viewers have viewed MANY MANY times, ans most of those are the posters themselves.
Bigiron
My apologies to you...Bill for "runnin' off at the lip again!
Dumb-n' dumber don (no wonder I am exiled here in Gig Haaaba?) ~> VD~
Keith mentioned Charles Buffalano's system: is this that silver bullet we're looking for?
* Could it find a judge who was sitting on a score?
* If it can document when a judge is ballooning, is their a method to adjust that out of the scores?
* What else can it do?
here is a web site that is set up to do the basic ANOVA needed to assess a batch of stunt scores.
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/anova.html