The US Team selection process in future years

I stopped racing entirely from 2001 until 2015 because of the
WGC team funding issues. My reasoning was, why bother racing
and qualifying if I'm just going to have to turn down a slot
anyway? I have raced the last 3 years again, mostly for fun,
and to see what the new generation is up to. Going forward
from here, I only see myself racing for the challenge and fun of
it without regards to team selection at all. Otherwise, it just
becomes too frustrating, and makes it not worth the effort at
all anymore..

RO

Thanks for coming back, Mike. It was a great pleasure and privilege to meet you and fly with you at Hobbs this past summer. Hope to fly with you again soon.

WB

On 11/6/2017 10:47 PM, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 18:21 06 November 2017, John Cochrane wrote:
The really interesting thing about this year's team selection is
not that one pilot wanted to go in 18 and was offered 15 instead.
The really screaming issue we saw this year is that pilot after
pilot declined the opportunity.. What is going on that so many of
our top pilots turn down the chance to go to WGC? Is there
anything we can do about that? Or is it just that the IGC itself
needs to reform the worlds game to make it more attractive? I'd
love to hear from those who turned down the chance as to why
they did so.
John Cochrane


The first US team which was selected by objective performance
was picked in 1984 for the 1985 Rieti Italy WGC. The members
we
Ray Gimmey - Open
Doug Jacobs -15m
John Seaborn -15m
Eric Mozer- Std
Mike Opitz-Std (myself)

The results were the best that Team USA has had in quite a while.
DJ won in 15m using "lone eagle" tactics. John Seaborn had a lot
of troubles and wound up at 33rd....
Ray wound up in 7th place in Open. Eric and I flew as a team
and finished 3rd and 5th.
So, we had mixed good results between "lone eagle" and team
tactics. This was before the other National teams really started to
aggressively train in team and pair flying tactics. All team member
expenses were covered by the SSA through member donations and
the raffle sale of a glider. (SSA membership = ~16K people)

The team for 1987 Benalla Australia, and results we
Ray Gimmey - Open -11
Doug Jacobs - 15m - 3
Eric Mozer - 15m - 15
Mike Opitz -Std - 2
John Byrd - Std -11
The other nations were now starting to aggressively train in team
flying. The French team finished right behind me in Std. Our
Open and 15m flew pretty much as "lone eagles".
John Byrd and I flew team. The only reason John did not finish
next to me was that we got split up on two critical days, and he
lost out each time that happened. Compared to recent results,
these results were not bad with 2 podium finishes. The SSA was
able to fully fund the team through the same fund raising as in
1985.

The team for 1989 Wiener Neustadt Austria and results we
Ray Gimmey - Open - 9
Ron Tabery - Open - 14
Doug Jacobs - 15m - 11
Karl Striedieck -15m - 17
Mike Opitz - Std - 18
John Byrd - STD - 16
John Byrd and I flew team, and the others were all "lone eagles".
The first 2 days were flown in very weak conditions into (newly
opened from the Soviet block) Hungary, which proved difficult
for all of us. The rest of the contest was in the Alps where local
knowledge became a big player. The French, German and British
teams had all been training very hard in team flying tactics by
then, and the results reflected that training. Again, the SSA was
able to fully fund all team member expenses through similar fund
raising activities.

You will notice that as the other Nations aggressively trained in
team flying over that 4 year period, the US team's performance
dropped, and kept falling for quite a while to follow.

I qualified for the US team again for 1995 Omarama New Zealand.
I was #5 out of 9 pilots. By that time, fund raising was starting
to go down, and the number of team members was up to 9 pilots
now - for a contest 1/2 the way around the world. The SSA
decided that they could only fully fund 4 team members, so #5-#9
were on their own to totally self fund. I had to decline my slot
as I could not afford the estimated ~$15,000 cost at that time.

I qualified for the US team again for 2001 Mafeking South Africa.
By then, funding was a real problem. There was the regular WGC
plus Club, World, 18m, Junior Class WGC's as well - including 5
team managers totaling 21 people plus crews who wanted
funding. I figured that it would now cost me ~$15,000 to self
fund what the SSA would not cover, so I declined again as I
could not afford it.

Now, I have qualified as an alternate for WGC 2018 Poland in Club
Class, and am declining that for financial reasons as well. Had
I been selected #1 or #2, I might have tried to see if someone
in Europe would be willing to swap gliders (and tow cars for equal
time periods) with me in order to reduce costs. The SSA funding
for Poland will only be for entry and tow fees. To stand by "just
in case" translates into ~$20.000 estimated out of pocket
expenses if called to go on short notice. US team members paid
between $20,000 and $30,000 out of pocket each for past WGC
contests in Lithuania and Finland.

For the Europeans, they can just hook their gliders onto their cars
and drive to the WGC's about 75% of the time. They don't have
to deal with ocean freight like we do almost continually. A lot of
them camp out in caravans at the contest to save expenses as
well. The Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans, and Canadians are in
much the same boat that we in the USA are, and it would be
interesting to see how they handle the funding and logistics
issues.

On top of all of that, the USA is a big country, and it is hard to get
team members together to train in team flying over those huge
distances. Most European nations are only geographically as large
as one of our 50 States, so it is easier for them to practice
together.

Lots of problems and issues. I don't have the answers either. We
are dealing with a world wide decline in interest in our sport. At
our home airfield in upstate NY, we are struggling to find new
members to replace the older group which is now aging out of
the sport.... As membership declines, WGC team funding does as
well. We may need to eliminate some FAI classes or somehow
reduce the numbers of folks that have a shot at getting a piece
of the funding pie. If one is good enough to be selected every
two years, one had better be rich if they plan to go to every
WGC. Right now, it appears that pilots who presently get to
go - compete in one or two WGC's and then say "been there,
done that, got the T-shirt, and I can't afford to keep doing
this..."

RO

Great stuff - thanks for researching and writing this up!!! Clearly (to me,
anyway), the goal of "selecting for winning" encompasses lots beyond "mere
pilot selection."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

The system selection process could be improved by utilizing a hybrid system of objective (hard numbers from contests) with subjective (pilot votes). The current system used objective values to select those eligible but then used subjective voting to create the final list.

The forced choice ranking was subject to large variance and the absolute values were used to rank the pilots without looking to see if they were statistically significantly different. Rather than forced choice ranking a value of 0 to 10 could be given to each pilot during the voting. Remember all of these pilots were above 88 percent to make the list. Most should be getting an equavelnt score between 9 and 10 in voting.

The subjective ranking would also likely benefit from using the technique of throwing out the high and low score. This would minimize the impact of outliers and minimize one voter giving a pilot and extremely high or low ranking in an attempt to skew the results.


A hybrid system would use both values in a combined score to retain the objective score while adding the subjective component. The weighting of each can be adjusted, but I would recommend no less than 50% for the objective score.

Any plan as well as equations for adjusting scores from FAI scored contests should be put out for discussion and voted on by the racing community.

Good direction - and discussion

Since I have no skin in the game, but have been involved in Olympic selection is another sport, maybe I can add in a positive way.

We had huge problems and some sport still do with Team selection - it is not just us. Pure result selection diminishes organizers stress but sometimes the team can be weaker. Pure subjective selection always leaves someone not selected bitter.

The direction Tim Taylor is suggesting seems pretty logical. I agree.

There are only a few things that seem odd in Soaring selection compared to my experience.

1. the athletes (pilots) voting? I am not sure I like that idea. They could vote people onto a selection committee...... the Coach had allot of influence - do we have a National Coach?
2. a percentage of slots were allocated based on pure performance and a lesser amount of slots were subjective (coaches choice). this gives some flexibility to bring someone who is the type who performs best on the big stage.. (there are some who only perform well in high profile competition, it a fact of life)
3. Selection was/is done in phases and way in advance of the competition, but with the coaches discretion should someone fall off the performance wagon - this minimizes surprises.

In ending I would say one thing - look at almost every Sport where selection happens....... The ONLY ones who get it right are the Last Years World Champions - everyone else is still struggling to get it right

WH

All good posts with insightful comments on how to get better team results. I think most all were modifications to the hybrid system of this year. Thank you, all.

Anyone out there think a more subjective or strict objective system is appropriate?

I can think of two subjective scenarios that would make our nationals about choosing a national champion only and get the weight of WGC selection out of contests. Contest flying might be more enjoyable for newbies that way.

1. We pick a coach and the coach picks the team - that's it. Accounts for things like building for future years. Allows best pilots to cross over to different classes.

2. All contest pilots vote their dream team, pure and simple. I suspect we all have an inking who should go. Are we getting there with these rankings? This system would account for those cases when a pilot can't string together a series of good placings in one class within the three years.

3. The above options are subjective. The strict objective numerical rankings of the previous several years is another option. I know there are some out there who believe this is the way to go.

Does anyone out there want to argue for one of these systems?

XC

SSA(all members or all racers?) elects a coach. Coach picks the team. If the coach picks all his buddies and they get trounced, we pick a new coach. Pro sports teams are put together by a human with talent for picking talent. We need to find the soaring version of pro sports scouts and let them pick the team.
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
All good posts with insightful comments on how to get better team results.. I think most all were modifications to the hybrid system of this year. Thank you, all.

Anyone out there think a more subjective or strict objective system is appropriate?

I can think of two subjective scenarios that would make our nationals about choosing a national champion only and get the weight of WGC selection out of contests. Contest flying might be more enjoyable for newbies that way.

1. We pick a coach and the coach picks the team - that's it. Accounts for things like building for future years. Allows best pilots to cross over to different classes.

2. All contest pilots vote their dream team, pure and simple. I suspect we all have an inking who should go. Are we getting there with these rankings? This system would account for those cases when a pilot can't string together a series of good placings in one class within the three years.

3. The above options are subjective. The strict objective numerical rankings of the previous several years is another option. I know there are some out there who believe this is the way to go.

Does anyone out there want to argue for one of these systems?

XC

I have been thinking along the same lines as TT. It is definitely preferable that the US National results actually count in the selection scheme and are not used merely to inform the voters. As TT suggests, the objective component from the contests should weigh north of 50% of the overall selection score. Voting results should have secondary impact.

Here's thoughts on a better way to do the voting: I propose that secret voting take place on the morning of the last contest day at each and every US Nationals contest for that class only. You must be a current category 1 pilot and you must be present to vote. The votes for the past two or three years will be combined just as the scores for the preceding years are combined. This will make the ranking results knowable at the end of the pertinent Nationals. This is how it should be to maximize opportunity for preparation among other things. This ensures that the voters are all dealing with true and current information when they do their voting. It diminishes opportunity for politicking and spreads the voting over multiple venues and time frames. Those pilots that actually attend both East and West contests will have more voting influence as is appropriate since they will have seen a wider spectrum of the contenders performances.

Elaborating on WH's point... it is not good to have people on a selection committee that are competing for slots. Although I trust all the individuals involved, I cannot see that as a worthy scheme; it will surely come under reproach repeatedly. It's not sufficient that you disconnected from the conference call when your own slot comes up for discussion.

I would like to see the selection committee unempowered except as they may be able to vote at the Nationals events. I see no reason to think that being on an SSA committee gives one especially greater wisdom in foretelling who will more likely win at the worlds. The same factors that the committee considers will also be considered by the wider set of elite pilot voters.

In my experience competitive Sport and Democracy don't really don't go together very well or produce a predictable amount of Champions. This does impact the US, since we love to vote - so without voting we have a melt down.

Some good ideas on how to balance objective and subjective inputs. Worth considering.

As someone who tilts to the analytical I find myself drawn to the precision of mathematical decision frameworks. Mathematical solutions are precise, transparent and not prone to things like block voting.

However, I'd observe that when it comes to calculating our way to a WGC team there is a difference between precision and accuracy. Just because we can calculate something to three decimal places doesn't mean that the precision signifies anything particularly accurate about the mix of the many personal attributes that makes someone a viable contender to be world champion.

We calculate UST scores in part based on performance at prior Nationals in each class. Given the inevitable random pilot performance and luck factors, this has two effects. First, people who have the personal flexibility to put in the travel to attend multiple sequential Nationals in a class have a better shot and second, people who have the personal flexibility to fly in Nationals in multiple classes get multiple bites at the apple. We only count the best scores, not the duds, so flying more contests ups your chances -at least if you are a good enough pilot to score near the top some of the time. There are a handful of pilots who get good scores based on only two qualifying contests flown - they are some of the best and most consistent pilots I know. Personally I look at both the average score across ALL contests flown AND the top two scores when attempting to judge a pilot's skill level and consistency. Neither is perfect by itself.

Also, we count, small, short and devalued Nationals the same as long competitive ones - even Nationals that are three days and get a 5% discount for PRL purposes get 100% credit for UST purposes - at least as I read it. We give credit for WGC performance and Continental contests in equal proportion even though the former is likely more competitive than a typical US Nationals and the latter could be the same or less - depending on participation. Adding these contests give pilots yet more scores to put into the mix and the WGC number gets counted across multiple classes, not just the one flown. More bites at the apple.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the way things are calculated for the most part, but I would caution that just because you can calculate a score to three decimal places doesn't mean that those decimal places tell you something that's very accurate. How you arrange the formula has a big impact.

IMO a system that adds in peer review voting in a way that limits movement up or down the list to two or three places would be appealing. (BTW, it's my understanding that this is a primary purpose of the UST committee - to weed out voting monkey business). Tim's suggestion that we use a 1-10 scale where pilots in contention would typically earn a 9 or 10 seems like an opportunity for a small number of ill intentioned voters to blackball a pilot by giving them a 1 or 2. It's a good idea in general, but probably not implemented exactly that way.

9B



On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
The system selection process could be improved by utilizing a hybrid system of objective (hard numbers from contests) with subjective (pilot votes). The current system used objective values to select those eligible but then used subjective voting to create the final list.

The forced choice ranking was subject to large variance and the absolute values were used to rank the pilots without looking to see if they were statistically significantly different. Rather than forced choice ranking a value of 0 to 10 could be given to each pilot during the voting. Remember all of these pilots were above 88 percent to make the list. Most should be getting an equavelnt score between 9 and 10 in voting.

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:08:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Some good ideas on how to balance objective and subjective inputs. Worth considering.

As someone who tilts to the analytical I find myself drawn to the precision of mathematical decision frameworks. Mathematical solutions are precise, transparent and not prone to things like block voting.

However, I'd observe that when it comes to calculating our way to a WGC team there is a difference between precision and accuracy. Just because we can calculate something to three decimal places doesn't mean that the precision signifies anything particularly accurate about the mix of the many personal attributes that makes someone a viable contender to be world champion.

We calculate UST scores in part based on performance at prior Nationals in each class. Given the inevitable random pilot performance and luck factors, this has two effects. First, people who have the personal flexibility to put in the travel to attend multiple sequential Nationals in a class have a better shot and second, people who have the personal flexibility to fly in Nationals in multiple classes get multiple bites at the apple. We only count the best scores, not the duds, so flying more contests ups your chances -at least if you are a good enough pilot to score near the top some of the time. There are a handful of pilots who get good scores based on only two qualifying contests flown - they are some of the best and most consistent pilots I know. Personally I look at both the average score across ALL contests flown AND the top two scores when attempting to judge a pilot's skill level and consistency. Neither is perfect by itself.

Also, we count, small, short and devalued Nationals the same as long competitive ones - even Nationals that are three days and get a 5% discount for PRL purposes get 100% credit for UST purposes - at least as I read it. We give credit for WGC performance and Continental contests in equal proportion even though the former is likely more competitive than a typical US Nationals and the latter could be the same or less - depending on participation. Adding these contests give pilots yet more scores to put into the mix and the WGC number gets counted across multiple classes, not just the one flown.. More bites at the apple.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the way things are calculated for the most part, but I would caution that just because you can calculate a score to three decimal places doesn't mean that those decimal places tell you something that's very accurate. How you arrange the formula has a big impact.

IMO a system that adds in peer review voting in a way that limits movement up or down the list to two or three places would be appealing. (BTW, it's my understanding that this is a primary purpose of the UST committee - to weed out voting monkey business). Tim's suggestion that we use a 1-10 scale where pilots in contention would typically earn a 9 or 10 seems like an opportunity for a small number of ill intentioned voters to blackball a pilot by giving them a 1 or 2. It's a good idea in general, but probably not implemented exactly that way.

9B



On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
The system selection process could be improved by utilizing a hybrid system of objective (hard numbers from contests) with subjective (pilot votes). The current system used objective values to select those eligible but then used subjective voting to create the final list.

The forced choice ranking was subject to large variance and the absolute values were used to rank the pilots without looking to see if they were statistically significantly different. Rather than forced choice ranking a value of 0 to 10 could be given to each pilot during the voting. Remember all of these pilots were above 88 percent to make the list. Most should be getting an equavelnt score between 9 and 10 in voting.


Forgot to mention the percentage "kickers" added to scores in world or continental competitions. It's another somewhat arbitrary number that has a significant impact.

9B