Bill Fisher, KM9P, posits one possible mathematical
formula for selecting WRTC 95 team members. He
observes that there is no obvious manner by which
the value of individual contributions to a multi-op
entry can be quantified. At the same time, he
understands that some ops have been pretty exclusively
involved in multi-op activities.
Bill resorts to an arbitrary assignment of relative
values to past, published operator performances. This is entirely
understandable. No formula can cover all of the
variables in a problem like this one. Perhaps Bill's
proposal is as good as any.
At the same time, though, everyone is aware that
published contest scores are not necessarily a good reflection
of operator ability. Recall the bandwidth devoted to the
issue of geographical advantage and disadvantage. Trying to
achieve a consensus as to what correction factor, if any,
to superimpose upon Bill's formula for the purpose of addressing
geographical issues will be tough.
Perhaps, then, the whole mathematical approach is not the best
one. Its advantages are the APPEARANCE of objectivity and fairness.
But, is it the most ACCURATE?
I ask: which do the WRTC sponsors want: (1) the best teams, or
(2) a selection system that seems objective?
If the answer is (1), then a mathematical processing of published
scores may not be the correct method. It occurs to me that many
of us have a pretty darned firm impression of who the best ops are,
and how they rank among themselves. There will be, of course, some
hotshots who nevertheless have a low profile. The skills of these
folks will be overlooked. But no more so than by a crunching of
published scores.
What if the sponsors just punted on the objectivity goal and
appointed a committee to vote on who would be on the teams? This
could be done after the fashion of the baseball hall-of-fame
voting. Or all-star this or that. You pick it. The committee
members assign, say, a ranking of ops on a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 numerical
basis. The op who gets named on the most ballots at the highest
rankings gets the most points.
Require that the selection committee be drawn from a sufficiently
diverse geographical base to enhance the prospect of fair
recognition of local hotshots who might not have much more than
a regional reputation. Also, establish some eligibility criteria
for appointment to the selection committee: x number of top-y
placements in an appropriate menu of contests in the potential
member's ARRL division, for example.
I'll bet that K1AR, KR0Y, N6KT, or whoever one prefers to name,
will not suffer in such a rating system.
As I say, do you really want the best ops, or do you want a
system that SEEMS objective?
--
73 de Bob, K0KR
>From Tom Frenaye <0002349723@mcimail.com> Sat Aug 13 02:10:00 1994
From: Tom Frenaye <0002349723@mcimail.com> (Tom Frenaye)
Subject: MM and packet
Message-ID: <20940813011002/0002349723PK4EM@mcimail.com>
It's my impression that most MM stations provide much more output in terms
of useful packet spots than they take in. From the MM effort here last
Spring I bet more than 90% of the mults came in without packet and another
5% would have been worked eventually. I think there may be a little more
impact in M/S and M/2 scores. 73 Tom K1KI 2349723@mcimail.com
|