The US Team selection process in future years

[XC]

I am starting this post to get the topic off one individual's personality. The 2018 team has ben selected as outlined in the new process. Claims that the process was not carried out fairly have no basis in fact. The Team has very little time to prepare and needs to get to work.

Here is a summary of what I've seen. In years past the team was hand picked and had some success but feelings were hurt and people felt unfairly excluded. Then we went totally objective and haven't had much success. This last time some good folks put a lot of thought into a new process. The SSA approved a plan to switch to more of hybrid system where competitors were allowed some input. Now already we are back talking about unfairness and feelings being hurt.

In the same period of time the whole WGC game changed in many ways, going to team flying and now changing away from team flying in some classes, technology changes each year, etc. For example we showed up in Australia not knowing that texting pilots via satellite would now be allowed. We were not prepared for this at all and we again were at a disadvantage. Also the US soaring community has decreased in size to say the least. Many other factors....

I would suggest that adaptability and efficient use of resources are keys to success moving forward. Below is a link to an interesting interview with Bill Walsh, coach of the 49er's, about building an effective team in today's world of individualism. There are many good points in there some of which pertain to our situation. It addresses ego - good and bad, team work, recognizing the value the whole team not just the starting players.

https://hbr.org/1993/01/to-build-a-winning-team-an-interview-with-head-coach-bill-walsh

I would like to contrast the teams Coach Walsh is talking about to your average Joe's fantasy football team. If you put the best fantasy football team together for real and told them to go play ball they wouldn't do well at all. If you read the article you will see that his teams are definitely about the game going forward, the goal of winning, and not about rewarding past performance.

So do we return two steps to naming a coach to build a team totally at his/her discretion? Do we go back one step to relying on a strict numerical ranking? Do we support the current system (modified as necessary) with some rankings and yet some ability to make adjustments?

Whatever opinion you post, please be supportive of this year's team. We want them to do well, right? Please be kind to our volunteers. We only have so many people willing to take on this work.

XC

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

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

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 1:21:21 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> The really screaming issue we saw this year is that pilot after pilot declined the opportunity.

Yes, John, I had the same startled reaction. I assume it's money and time. Lots of both are required, I'm told.

I'll take it one step further. Forty years ago, we had only two classes, Open and Standard, before adding 15M, and one world championships held every 2 years. It was a BIG DEAL to get on the U.S. Team (as illustrated by the alleged gaming of the preferential voting system that, among other things, is thought to have denied George Moffat the chance to defend his World Champion title in 1976 in Finland and occasional discussions of a SuperNationals with the top X in each class invited to participate to determine the U.S. Team slots).

With a few exceptions, the same small handful of top U.S. pilots returned to the World Championships time after time.

I'm only half kidding when I say that I'm not sure how many classes we have now (7?) or how many world championships there are (at least one a year, sometimes 2). But the word "proliferation" comes to mind. And arguably the number of serious competitors has shrunk (although the dramatic decrease in nationals attendance probably owes as much to class proliferation as to declining participation). As a result, the pool of U.S. Team members seems to have expanded. I don't want to say it's easier to get on the Team. But it does seem that way.

I'll defer to John when it comes to economic theory but I wonder if the declining "price of admission" to qualifying for the U.S. Team might spur demand for it over time, resulting in increased nationals participation by pilots who might otherwise fly a couple of regionals instead. This could be exacerbated (enhanced?) by the fact that pilots would have to commit a lot of time and personal funds to accept an invitation, thus reducing demand and prompting many to decline.

Chip Bearden

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Good post Chip, but it turns out that it's not true that we just send the same pilots over and over again. A few stalwarts (masochists?) like Gary Ittner have done it many times, but you just notice them. Most pilots on US teams have gone to exactly one WGC, and most US team slots have been to pilots who went once. One problem the US team is trying to solve is the consequent loss of knowledge and experience. I'm an example, I went once, learned a lot, but all that experience is lost. Most of the team I went with (Kelly, Tyler, Elliot) went once, only Elliot going again, and that to Uvalde. It cost north of $35,000 and that was 2010.

I wonder if other teams are having this difficulty. Also knowing we're one step behind on the technology side before we show up can't help.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Good post Chip, but it turns out that it's not true that we just send the same pilots over and over again.

Sorry, John, I thought I was clear in referring to the old days when the teams comprised George Moffat, Dick Johnson, AJ Smith, Dick Schreder, and a handful of others. Just for kicks, I went to http://www.ssa.org/USTeam?show=blog&id=2128 and checked out the teams for the years of my youth. In the 9 world championships between 1960 and 1978, only 14 different pilots filled 34 of the team slots. Dick Johnson went 8 times followed by Schreder, AJ, and Moffat with 4 times each. It's perhaps no coincidence that the latter two garnered 3 of America's 5 world championships, each of them winning the 2nd time around (and 4th, in Moffat's case).

In 2012, by contrast (the last "big championship" year on this page), the U..S. Team comprised 11 pilots just for this year alone!

FWIW, at least two of those pilots declined invitations to participate in this year's selection. So I'll stay with my tentative conclusions that it's "easier" to get on a U.S. Team (which might have the effect of attracting pilots to national contests) while agreeing with you that the cost and time might discourage pilots from doing so more than once or twice. As you point out, that's bad for U.S. Team prospects over time.

Interestingly, only 3 of the 12 (twelve!) pilots who participated with you in 2010 showed up two years later, but I don't know how much of that was team selection vs. cost/time. If cost is the big inhibitor, the solution is simple: just raise more funding for the Team! :)

Chip Bearden

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 6 November 2017 14:27:39 UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Good post Chip, but it turns out that it's not true that we just send the same pilots over and over again.
>
> Sorry, John, I thought I was clear in referring to the old days when the teams comprised George Moffat, Dick Johnson, AJ Smith, Dick Schreder, and a handful of others. Just for kicks, I went to http://www.ssa.org/USTeam?show=blog&id=2128 and checked out the teams for the years of my youth. In the 9 world championships between 1960 and 1978, only 14 different pilots filled 34 of the team slots. Dick Johnson went 8 times followed by Schreder, AJ, and Moffat with 4 times each. It's perhaps no coincidence that the latter two garnered 3 of America's 5 world championships, each of them winning the 2nd time around (and 4th, in Moffat's case).
>
> In 2012, by contrast (the last "big championship" year on this page), the U.S. Team comprised 11 pilots just for this year alone!
>
> FWIW, at least two of those pilots declined invitations to participate in this year's selection. So I'll stay with my tentative conclusions that it's "easier" to get on a U.S. Team (which might have the effect of attracting pilots to national contests) while agreeing with you that the cost and time might discourage pilots from doing so more than once or twice. As you point out, that's bad for U.S. Team prospects over time.
>
> Interestingly, only 3 of the 12 (twelve!) pilots who participated with you in 2010 showed up two years later, but I don't know how much of that was team selection vs. cost/time. If cost is the big inhibitor, the solution is simple: just raise more funding for the Team! :)
>
> Chip Bearden

Another factor may be the short time to prepare and plan for 2018 events. With the change in selection process, the folks going to the 2018 events have 9 months or less to prepare, line up equipment, housing etc etc.

Previously the individuals were selected 18+ months advance, providing time to even attend the pre-worlds if they so desired.

The new selection process could have started after Uvalde and provided a couple of more months.

[Michael Opitz]

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
were:
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 were:
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 were:
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

[[email protected]]

Hold the WGC in America. Make the Europeans take a boat.

[Michael Opitz]

At 11:54 07 November 2017, wrote:
>Hold the WGC in America. Make the Europeans take a boat.
>
Marfa, Hobbs and Uvalde X 2. We have hosted them, probably
more times than most any other nation over that time period.
There are a lot of other countries that make up the IGC
community, and a lot of them want their turn to host a WGC.
Most of those countries are grouped together in Europe, so
that's where ~75% of the WGC's will be held. The USA is not
the center of the IGC soaring world. That is a fact that our
folks will just have to deal with. Otherwise, just do OLC and
stay at home...

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

[BobW]

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
> were:
> 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 were:
> 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 were:
> 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

[Steve Koerner]

Excellent report RO! Most informative piece I've ever read on RAS.

I hadn't realized the degree of financial commitment that's required of the team members. Between the problems of geography that prevents team practicing and the geography problem that increases travel cost and the expanding number of classes and the declining SSA membership base, we're in a pickle..

One thing that your report shows is that during the early years of objective team selection, there was not a problem that could be tied to rotating in too many new people as consequence of objective standards.

[WB]

>
> 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

[Michael Opitz]

At 16:11 07 November 2017, Steve Koerner wrote:
>Excellent report RO! Most informative piece I've ever read on RAS.
>
>
>One thing that your report shows is that during the early years
of objective team selection, there was not a problem that could
be tied to rotating in too many new people as consequence of
objective standards.
>

Funny Rieti story. During the opening parade, the announcer hardly
recognized any of the USA team's names, so he introduced us as
the "much overhauled Team USA", and everyone was snickering.
They didn't snicker anymore after the first competition day though.
DJ and I won the day in 15m and Std. The other team members
placed right up there with us. There was lots of shouting on the
German's part due to the fact that we had procured the "coaching"
services of German champion Walter Neubert (who had great
individual success in Rieti). When asked why he wasn't coaching the
German team, Walter replied that nobody had thought to ask him.
The Germans were labeling Walter as a traitor, and he just laughed
it off. What a real gentleman. We had T-shirts made that had Team
USA on the fronts, and "much overhauled" across the backs in order
tweak the people and announcer who had been snickering during
the opening ceremonies.

DJ flew an absolutely unconscious contest as a lone eagle. His lead
kept growing as the organizers kept setting harder and harder tasks
with what looked like (to us anyway) the intent to get DJ to land out
and even up the scores. Except, DJ kept finishing while everyone
else landed out. Going into the end of the contest, DJ had close to
a full day's 1000 point lead, and it seemed like the organizers finally
gave up on trying to get him to land out. He succeeded in
absolutely blowing the world's best 15m pilots right out of the water
in a very convincing fashion. There was no more snickering at the
closing ceremonies, and I know that several other nation's teams
went home pretty mad about their own poor performances. I know
that the French used their poor performance at Rieti as a stimulus
to build up their team, which has been a juggernaut since Austria in
1989... The German, British and Polish teams seem to have done
the same as well.... The team flying landscape has drastically
changed with all of this too. It makes the typical "lone eagle" type
pilot's (which objective selection methods might tend to produce)
chances of doing well smaller and smaller - as I see it anyway...
As you said, "We're in a pickle."

RO

[[email protected]]

"Just tell me what you want."

Scenario 1: The prime objective of U.S. competitive soaring is to win the World Championships. Ergo national championships--including the rules (e.g., regarding task types and team flying)--should encompass training, evaluation, and selection processes that surface pilots who can excel on the world stage. Venues should closely mirror those of upcoming world championships. Only those qualified few who are being groomed for and/or truly have a realistic chance of placing well should be chosen and funded. The inclusion of a self-funded "auxiliary corps" of pilots to fill out the allowable (by WGC organizers) Team slots should be based on whether their addition will enhance or detract from the Team's chances.

Scenario 2: The prime objectives of U.S. competitive soaring are (i) to select champions and (ii) to encourage participation by as many qualified pilots as possible through selection of task types and venues (higher completion ratios, venues with better weather, sites rotated for geographic equity, etc.) as well as social events. Selection of an expanded group of pilots to U.S. Teams with modest financial support would be as much to motivate/reward them and to generate PR and general enthusiasm for competition soaring as it would be an opportunity for the U.S. to excel on the world stage.

These are not 100% mutually exclusive but they do reflect different perspectives. Or perhaps points on a continuum. Thoughts?

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 3:53:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> "Just tell me what you want."
>
If you are drawing from the pool of pilots that have the resources to play with cutting edge gliders you are in a hobby sport. And that's OK. If you want the US to win the Worlds, the US National Team needs to have coaches. Own/lease/rent cutting edge gliders. Then put the fastest pilots they can grow in them. For a variety of reasons that would be experienced juniors or recently aged out juniors. Provided they have dodged marriage, mortgages, car and student loans...
Would require a lot of support from old time glider pilots while cutting most of them out of the chance of making the team. Do we want a US Team that wins the Worlds or a better chance getting on the team for any hobby pilot that tries?

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Re chip's post: We should distinguish the purposes of US contests, and the purposes of the US team, not just selection policy but its other activities.. US contests must have a broad participation motive. Among other issues, if we run them as pure training camps, meaning you must have crew or motor, and you will land out a lot, we will get far fewer people. It is more reasonable that the US team have a focused objective of winning. Though notice how it has been asked to trade that for fairness, transparency, etc.
John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Crowd funding might be successful, If the general SSA membership were fans of our racing team. The most excitement I have seen surrounding a glider race, in the U.S., was this summer's junior team effort in Lithuania. Those young men flew their hearts out, as much for each other as themselves. We took notice and cheered for them. I, for one, will be willing to open my wallet when their opportunity comes around again. Most glider pilots I know, don't give a whit about our racing team. The new system combining objective and subjective selection criteria may be a move in the right direction. It is certainly a well thought out idea and deserves a chance to succeed. If it leads to a real team effort and not an assemblage of egos it may give us a team worth cheering for. My Dad used to tell me when I was whining " Don't cry before you'r bit ". Good advice I think.
Dale Bush

[Tim Taylor]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[XC]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Steve Koerner]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bojack J4]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

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.
>

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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)