September 27, 2004
Ouch.
My question about this system: what happens if you’re competing against someone who is a national pacesetter, but they do better in 2006 relative to the national champion than they did in 2005? Is there any way to account for that, or does it assume the national champion would have improved the same degree, thereby making his/her “virtual” performance even better?
My question about this system: what happens if you’re competing against someone who is a national pacesetter, but they do better in 2006 relative to the national champion than they did in 2005? Is there any way to account for that, or does it assume the national champion would have improved the same degree, thereby making his/her “virtual” performance even better?
I think that’s why they use multiple pacesetters per race. They can throw out the outliers (the guy who is now taking drugs, and the guy who had a bad day), and base the race ranking on the typical performance of a pacesetter compared to the national pacesetter.
Oh. Duh, that makes a lot of sense. hits head Thanks for clarifying.
Brad Leonard and I have been tossing the idea around for more than a decade. We met when we served together on the Tri-Fed board in the mid-80’s - I had been a ski instructor in Aspen in the 70’s and Brad is such an avid skier that he moved to Copper Mountain when he retired from the D.C. bureaucracy a few years ago.
Both of us were gone from the board when the initial ranking system was established (circa 1990, during Mark Sisson’s tenure as Exec. Dir). But we stayed in touch and quickly recognized the flaws in the original system design (which has changed only cosmetically in the intervening 15 years). We talked to each other at length about the issues and both agreed that the NASTAR model could solve most of the problems. We wrote a number of papers on the subject, tested the formulae fairly thoroughly - but, until this year, could never get a nibble from the powers-that-be at USAT.
Brad Leonard and I have been tossing the idea around for more than a decade. We met when we served together on the Tri-Fed board in the mid-80’s - I had been a ski instructor in Aspen in the 70’s and Brad is such an avid skier that he moved to Copper Mountain when he retired from the D.C. bureaucracy a few years ago.
Both of us were gone from the board when the initial ranking system was established (circa 1990, during Mark Sisson’s tenure as Exec. Dir). But we stayed in touch and quickly recognized the flaws in the original system design (which has changed only cosmetically in the intervening 15 years). We talked to each other at length about the issues and both agreed that the NASTAR model could solve most of the problems. We wrote a number of papers on the subject, tested the formulae fairly thoroughly - but, until this year, could never get a nibble from the powers-that-be at USAT.
Kudos to you and your associates for realizing that an existing pattern could be reused. My biggest concerns (which you seem to have anticipated and accounted for) are 1) the possibility for no pacesetters at a race (in skiing, the local pro is pretty much always there, as part of his job) and 2) a sub-par performance by the pacesetter (what happened in skiing if the pacesetter fell?).
I think it would be a good idea if USATriathlon somehow sponsored pacesetters at local races to encourage participation. Offer to pay some or all of their race fees if they sign up in advance to ensure coverage.
I’m looking forward to a meaningful ranking system in 2006. If only I do some USAT races…