Hi Rick,

As a member of the AMA Contest Board, I had an active role in the modifications to the matrix system that first took effect at the last Nats. Before I say anything else, let me say that I view the matrix system as a flawed, but necessary evil designed to deal with more contestants than the current judging pool system can handle. A number of people spent a considerable amount of time developing this system through the years, including, but not limited to Ron Van Putte, Dave Guerrin, and Jerry Budd as a complex solution to a complex problem. As long as we have contestant judging working half days coupled with a contestant turnout within a class that is larger than a half days worth of judges can reasonably judge, we're going to be stuck with some sort of matrix system.

This year, the seeding worked to perfection and the best pilots were evenly spread among the four groups. More often than not in the past, the seeding hasn't worked as well, mostly because of last minute no-shows. The end result was a real mixed bag of hard groups and easy groups with variations in between those two poles. If you had the good fortune to be with an easy group, your chances of making the finals went up significantly. The last time I made the finals was three years ago under the previous matrix system when I jumped from 10th place (or somewhere near there) to 5th place on the final day of qualifications when my group flew against the easy group. The next year, I was in Tony's group which was arguably the hardest group since he ended up winning it all and came out 11th or 12th. There were a number of guys that made the finals that I beat in qualifications when we actually flew head to head. However, when your group includes someone (in this case, Tony) who's smoking flight after flight, your scores are depressed compared to someone else who doesn't compete with him on every flight. This was the basis for the ranking system which places the emphasis on where you place within the actual pilots you compete against on any given day rather than comparing your flight scores against someone who flew on a different site in front of a different set of judges. I don't think anybody who flew at the Nats last year would argue that anybody other than the 8 pilots who flew in the finals should have made it instead. I sent a significant amount of time informally polling Masters pilots on how the felt about the ranking system and everyone I talked to liked it much better than what we had before with many saying that we finally had a "fair" system.

Your point on counting the best four ranking scores is well taken but carries one significant flaw. By taking the best 4 ranking scores to determine the finalists, it's possible to avoid a superior pilot by throwing out the 2 ranking scores from the day you flew against him. This year, that wouldn't have mattered much because there was at least one superior pilot in each of the 4 groups. As someone who's flown in the last 10 or so Nats, I can assure you that this year was the exception rather than the rule. In any year preceding this one, being able to avoid someone would have been a huge advantage. As you pointed out, the downside to having to keep one ranking score from each day is that you can't afford to have a bad day. You can have a bad round, but not a bad day. For those that haven't flown in the Nats, it's important to note that the Finals are flown under our conventional rules with equal judging exposure and normalized scores. The matrix only comes into play during the preliminaries that lead up to the finals when there aren't enough judges available to provide equal judging exposure to every pilot.

All of this was taken into consideration by the Contest Board. While I can't speak for anyone else on the Board, I will tell you that in my opinion, with full consideration given to the fact that this is our National Championship, I think it's fairer to make sure that everyone faces every other pilot and keeps one of those rounds. I believe that the current version of the matrix is the third variant since it was originally conceived by Ron Van Putte. If the Board receives input indicating that the best 4 rounds are viewed as more important than equal judging exposure, the matrix can be modified again. Unfortunately, those two options are about the only choices we have under the current conditions.

Verne Koester