The US Team selection process in future years

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:08:26 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
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.

Along those lines, perhaps there could be a statistical trigger (e.g., based on standard deviation or other measures of variance) when there's unusual dispersion among the votes. Or when the voting order differs from the objective ranking by some amount. [Actually, higher dispersion within the voting should correlate most of the time with differences between the two rankings but I can envision situations (valid and questionable) where that would not be true.]

That trigger might call for closer scrutiny by the Team Committee, a second round of voting, a survey of the voters, or some other action or review to minimize questions about the validity of the selection.

I'm sure Andy could develop an algorithm that would serve as a trigger or circuit breaker or alarm for this purpose.

Chip Bearden

From the outside looking in:

Any time there is subjectivity someone will get upset, for that reason I prefer a straight analytical approach.
I had to fight to be on my first team because one of the excellent established team members had almost got a podium at the previous WGC, I would have reacted badly if he beat me on the team as I had beaten him two years in a row for the selection. (As it happens he didn't go anyway and I was the only Standard class entry.)
Team flying is incredibly difficult to do well and the pilots should be able to sort out what to do about whether to team fly or just cooperate.
I got on well with all the US team at Benalla, including both Seans, and saw no disharmony.
Re pilots not going once selected: many reasons, time, money, motivation. I was selected for 2018 in 18M (with our selection I would have needed to go to the pre-worlds or that spot is under threat this season) but time/work and motivation after four WGCs in a row have beaten me down, in a few years I might try again.
Money wise we probably get even less than the US team but I have been very fortunate to fly gliders owned by very generous people. (Thanks again Al )
The current team/gaggle flying as was so important at Benalla I find dangerous and only judges certain skills. If the IGC eventually changes a few starting and numbers rules so a "lone wolf" could win then I might go again, although flying in Europe in flatlands I find a downgrade compared to home (or Uvalde! )
Like Sean F I like fixed tasks but am happy with AATs about 50% of the time, I have no experience of MATs but expect it would be a bit of a lottery (that skilled pilots would get lucky with a lot). GP flying I find a lot of fun and sorry that work will stop me trying for the next World GP in Spain. ( the selection for World GPs is really easy!)
I have now flown five WGCs with two top tens and three mid fleet results, three day wins (with one at Uvalde and one in Leszno being AATs!)
Happy flying,
Tom Claffey (former Aussie team member)

Has anyone thought to research how the other international teams (that kick our butts) make their team selections? Seems to be a lot of their same guys every Worlds.

J4

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:12:39 PM UTC-5, Bojack J4 wrote:
Has anyone thought to research how the other international teams (that kick our butts) make their team selections? Seems to be a lot of their same guys every Worlds.

J4

The USTC did exactly that, including personal interviews with leaders of several leading teams. Input from those talks was a part of that which was used to develop the existing process. They also got a lot of input from some of our best former team member elders.
The process didn't come out of some secret dark room.
UH