I would like to suggest a revision to the scoring rules order to allow people to retain hard earned points after cat-ing up. A good example of a system that works well is the Georgia-cross series:
http://www.georgia-cross.com/rules.htm
This is the only fair way to award credit for all races and still encourage people to cat-up instead of sandbagging.
so 1 guy races B and get 60 points for 2 races and the other guy races A's and gets 54 points, you are going to give the series lead to someone who raced the B's the series lead? Whos to say the guy racing the A's couldnt have done the same thing and raced down for a couple of races and then catted up, there has to be a medium of points reduction.
PS I told Brent, if J-rod beats me the next 2 races regardless of placing - he just has to beat ME - I would be more than happy to let him have the series, EHTICS my man!!!
the ga. cross protocol is flawed to say the least, if it goes how it reads. that was my first place of looking. i threw it out there that jerrod be place one point above travis when he catted up--the reasoning being that travis did not race the first race while the others had. i got no response on that so i have done just that. this is not reflected on the scoresheet yet, but, is the decision i've made.
Respectfully, are you sure you read the GA points breakout correctly and my comment as it was intended? I suggest re-alligning "everyone's" points for all the races. The A's get 120 points for first, B's 60 points and C's 30, right on down the chain according to the GA points breakout. Or it could be A's 60, B's 45, C's 30 and so on. It doesn't matter as long as they are weighted. By the GA rules Hurley would be at 456, Fyfe at 396, Dorminey at 288, and Sherman at 168, just like Brent had orignally considered. Dorminey still has to earn the rest (if he is that good :-) and incurs a reasonable penalty for not racing in A's from the beginning. It actually works out very well for everyone and provides a built in system of checks and balances to keep people moving up instead of sandbagging. It even moves McNeal up a place in the B's. If there are any flaws, I am curious to know what they are?
I participated in all the GA races last year and watched this work successfully many times in the course of the 10 races.
the ga cross points grid is a good one, i wasn't catching that the classes were scored differently. you're right, that is a good system. we will look at this for next year.
DL, my bad on missin the point differences. In theory though if our races were to continue on the way they have in regards to results Jerrod would stand no possibilty of winning the series, that does sound fair though, because you never know what will happen in a race. Respect!!
10 comments:
I would like to suggest a revision to the scoring rules order to allow people to retain hard earned points after cat-ing up. A good example of a system that works well is the Georgia-cross series:
http://www.georgia-cross.com/rules.htm
This is the only fair way to award credit for all races and still encourage people to cat-up instead of sandbagging.
Thanks,
so 1 guy races B and get 60 points for 2 races and the other guy races A's and gets 54 points, you are going to give the series lead to someone who raced the B's the series lead? Whos to say the guy racing the A's couldnt have done the same thing and raced down for a couple of races and then catted up, there has to be a medium of points reduction.
PS I told Brent, if J-rod beats me the next 2 races regardless of placing - he just has to beat ME - I would be more than happy to let him have the series, EHTICS my man!!!
the ga. cross protocol is flawed to say the least, if it goes how it reads. that was my first place of looking. i threw it out there that jerrod be place one point above travis when he catted up--the reasoning being that travis did not race the first race while the others had. i got no response on that so i have done just that. this is not reflected on the scoresheet yet, but, is the decision i've made.
oh, and a revision will not be needed...there was nothing in place to begin with.charting new territory here.
Respectfully, are you sure you read the GA points breakout correctly and my comment as it was intended? I suggest re-alligning "everyone's" points for all the races. The A's get 120 points for first, B's 60 points and C's 30, right on down the chain according to the GA points breakout. Or it could be A's 60, B's 45, C's 30 and so on. It doesn't matter as long as they are weighted. By the GA rules Hurley would be at 456, Fyfe at 396, Dorminey at 288, and Sherman at 168, just like Brent had orignally considered. Dorminey still has to earn the rest (if he is that good :-) and incurs a reasonable penalty for not racing in A's from the beginning. It actually works out very well for everyone and provides a built in system of checks and balances to keep people moving up instead of sandbagging. It even moves McNeal up a place in the B's. If there are any flaws, I am curious to know what they are?
I participated in all the GA races last year and watched this work successfully many times in the course of the 10 races.
Very respectfully,
DH
the ga cross points grid is a good one, i wasn't catching that the classes were scored differently. you're right, that is a good system. we will look at this for next year.
DL, my bad on missin the point differences. In theory though if our races were to continue on the way they have in regards to results Jerrod would stand no possibilty of winning the series, that does sound fair though, because you never know what will happen in a race.
Respect!!
Post a Comment