SEN 1462

Details

Category: Archive 2010

Hits: 1181

1. 2010 SE FAI Challenge Report and Results
2. Finals - Shailor
3. Finals - Biggles

As always, there is no way this meet could be organized and run the way it is without Bob Beecroft‘s help and patience at the head table every year.

Thanks again to everyone who came and we hope to see you all back next year.


Bill Booth Jr.   #cg_msg_content div, #cg_msg_content table, #cg_msg_content thead, #cg_msg_content tbody, #cg_msg_content tfoot, #cg_msg_content tr, #cg_msg_content th, #cg_msg_content td, #cg_msg_content p { font-size: x-small; }

Finals Format Revisited, Ad Infinitum

Another post-Finals November is here and we find yet another series of complaints about the format with nobody stepping forward to clarify what the perceived problem is that needs to be fixed. As I've asked in the past, what was it, precisely, about this past Finals that produced an unfair result? In other words, who isn't on the team who should be and, by implication, who is on the team who shouldn't be?
We all have our sob stories program after program. This year, a bad prop fold on the first round stalled my model to the ground in spite of my model being higher than others at launch. This was not the fault of the organizers or the program format. It just wasn't my day.
I saw other flyers drop rounds they should have made as well. It wasn't their day, either. So it goes. 

But to complain there is something inherently defective  in our current team selection format without first identifying what that defect is seems disingenuous to me. If the purpose for selecting a team, regardless of format, is to produce the best team, how can the results, i. e. the team's composition, be criticized when they haven't even competed yet? 

This goes back to my earlier observation that there are some who must think that any team that doesn't include certain flyers must be based on a defective selection process. In other words, there are some who, but for events that need to be "engineered" to get them on the team, deserve a spot regardless of how the program is run. 

So rather than pinpoint exactly how this past process failed, which involves identifying who should and shouldn't be on the team, we get Rube Goldbergesque proposals with no underlying data to support the belief they will produce better teams by a fairer process.
All I can say is Welcome to Free Flight, where nothing is fair. 

Bill Shailor

Evolution or Revolution:

Should we fine tune or radically change the US Team Selection Finals Program ?

I have followed with interest the recent lively dialog in SEN on possible options…
So, just out of curiosity, in a totally unscientific comparison, I thought it would be interesting to see what the outcome might have been if Roger’s proposed Final’s rules had been in place for this past Selection cycle, using the results from 2009 and 2010. (Although of course the outcome is purely academic, because potential entrants didn’t know at the time that these six contests could be used as potential Team Selection criteria).

The following statistics were used to calculate Bonus Points :
Max Men 2009:  F1A (25 entries) F1B (30 entries) F1C (21 entries)
F/F NATS 2009:  F1A (18 entries) F1B (30 entries) F1C (8 entries)
Sierra Cup 2009:  F1A (13 entries) F1B (25 entries) F1C (13 entries)
Max Men 2010:  F1A (20 entries) F1B (32 entries) F1C (17 entries)
F/F NATS 2010:  F1A (14 entries) F1B (18 entries) F1C (7 entries)
Sierra Cup 2010:  F1A (13 entries) F1B (19 entries) F1C (8 entries)

F1A Team:
108 points Jim Parker:  1st MM10 50 + 5 & 1st SC10 50 + 3
100 points Rene Limberger:  1st SC09 50 + 3 & 2nd MM09 40 + 7
100 points Don Zink:  1st MM09 50 + 7 & 2nd FFN10 40 + 3
98 points Alternate Andrew Barron:  1st FFN09 50 + 5 & 2nd SC10 40 + 3

F1B Team:
118 points Alex Andriukov:  1st MM09 50 + 9 & 1st MM10 50 + 9
104 points Walt Ghio:  1st SC10 50 + 5 & 2nd MM09 40 + 9
98 points Aram Schlosberg:  1st FFN09 50 + 9 & 3rd MM09 30 + 9
86 points Alternate George Batiuk:  2nd FFN09 40 + 9 & 3rd SC09 30 + 7

F1C Team:
105 points Don Chesson:  1st FFN10 50 + 1 & 1st MM10 50 + 4
97 points Ron McBurnett:  1st SC09 50 + 3 & 2nd MM10 40 + 4
92 points Austin Gunder:  1st SC10 50 + 1 & 3rd FFN09 40 + 1
67 points Alternate Ed Carrol:  3rd SC09 30 + 3 & 3rd MM10 30 + 4

Interestingly for this example, it shows that such a system would have required a higher standard of performance to make the Team than the present Finals.  The existing format rewards a 3rd place at single Finals event with a Team Place.  But if counting 6 events the standard required appears to be much higher.  Two 1st places will guarantee a Team place, but a 1st and a 2nd may not.  A 3rd place will likely not result in any Team place, and any placing 4th or below appears of no consequence.

Bonus Points are critical to placing at the top, and may relegate a competitor with seemingly similar results to Alternate status or less.  But consider that a winner may have beaten a field of 29 other sportsmen, but the second placer only beat 28, and the third placer only beat 27.  So should all competitors get the same Bonus points from the same event ?  What if the 1st place scored 100 points, plus the number of flyers beaten, and the 2nd place scored 90 points plus the number of flyers beaten, etc., would that be more fair ?

However, there is a fundamental difference with the proposed six events system, versus the standard Finals format, in that the competition will mix genuine FAI Program entrant’s scores, with other non-FAI Program entrants.  What happens at the end of the 2 year cycle if one of the non-FAI Program flyers happens to end up with the highest score ?  Surely, having clearly demonstrated a better performance than those selected by this process, perhaps instead they should be on the Team ?   And if non-FAI Program entrants are permitted to fly in the same contest (as indeed their numbers are crucial in contributing to the Bonus pool) then indeed what constitutes eligibility to fly in, and be counted in, the Bonus pool ?  Will Senior entrants scores be counted ?  Will Junior entrants scores be counted.  NOTE:  recently, both Juniors and Seniors have won these same major FAI events, beating their US Open counterparts (and any attending Foreign entrants).

So, if you really want the broadest motivation to increase the popularity of FAI participation — then why not open up the US Team Selection Program to all comers, at no cost.  Simply put, if you fly in any of the six contests, then you’re in the Program.  And if you do well, you could be on the Team.  Now there’s real motivation.  I can already hear the cries of anguish for who will pay for Team Travel, but let’s worry about that after we have picked the best possible US Team — or is that too radical ?

—  Biggles

...........

Roger Morrell

• Prev
• Next