While I am sure that this has been addressed... But give me a break :P

Referencing the Overall points system. I would think that it should be judged by your index and not the number of races that you enter.

Having a 1K GXS-R I only have 4 races total that I can enter. Out of those races I am averaging 925 on my index (SW amatuer).

Think about it....the overall champion should be based up his ablity to be consistant and win the most in EVERY RACE THAT HE ENTERS. Not by the AMOUNT races that you race. In essence...you can buy your title with CCS (so I am told).

I think that there should be an overall champion (based upon the riders index) and a "Ata-boy" trophy for the guy that races 7 races a day and places in the top ten (Overall points).

hehehehehehe  ;D

No one has ever complained about this crap before.  Really.  ;D

Maybe you should get a diff bike :-/ or another bike. I am running a 750 in 5 classes. One of our Team guys is running 7 classes per weekend on 2 bikes.  I also think that they have something called Class total point...so just win your class. An overall champion races overall in many classes

Just basing off of the performance index doesn't do any good either.  Last season my perfomance index in Am Ultra-Light was 1000...I was second in points because I missed a few rounds.  If I had not raced other classes, that performance index would have been reflected in my overall amatuer points.  So would that have ment anything special?

We all know the CCS points system and top 10 plate system is flawed.  It's there to encourge people to enter lots of races and pay lots of money in entries.  I remember the current SW #1 holder pulling out of many races...

That's why ASMA hands out number plates based on the Formula Arroyo class only.  You need to be fast to get a plate.

Then again amatuer overall doesn't really mean much of anything anyway, no plate, no nothing.  Kinda like bouncing around regions as an amatuer so as to not build up enough points for a bump to expert then sweeping the Am classes at ROC...

-z.

Stone

Stop complaining and race with the big boys!!!

Sorry dude.  I don't see it changing.  Been where you are now.  Was leading the points totals by running my 5 normal classes.  Got beaten by a guy who ran up to 12 or so races a weekend.  (More than a few were 1 lap 'races'.)  It sucked....but thems the rules.

Lol  ::)


Two Stones, too funny!

Ask anyone who's been around awhile and they'll tell ya about my infamous banquet speech. (ie: Jewett, Jim Cox etc...)

QuoteLol  ::)


Two Stones, too funny!

Ask anyone who's been around awhile and they'll tell ya about my infamous banquet speech. (ie: Jewett, Jim Cox etc...)

First theres alot of thing that I like about the way you run Arroyo. First...gridding by points standing ;D and Second....how you determine the top riders.

I just personally dont understand seeing a flawed system going untouched :'(

Pat can jump in a lake!! I might as well go with the "big boys". I beat most of them ;)

Here we go again..... ;D

QuoteFirst theres alot of thing that I like about the way you run Arroyo. First...gridding by points standing ;D and Second....how you determine the top riders.

I just personally dont understand seeing a flawed system going untouched :'(
 ;)

(Just as an example to show how it's seen from the other side of the coin.)

    Flawed? In what way? The goal of CCS/Clear Channel is ultimately to make money. The people who run CCS GENUINELY care about racing, yet they so often are made out to be the bad guys. The system is set-up the way it is to encourage racers to run more classes and for ease of figuring. Can you blame CCS for wanting to make money?

     Go by performance index for overall championship and I bet you would see less total entries per event. It's been suggested to go by P/I many times, generally based on your best finishes in any 3 or 4 classes per event. Not only would this invite much complaining about using the wrong classes to figure someones P/I average but also that the P/I's may have been misfigured. CCS doesn't have exotic computer programs figuring endlessly 24/7, more so I have interpretted it to be much more old school with alot of manual labor still involved. The problem with being CCS (otherwise known as the bastard step-child of Clear Channel) is that they are given what is needed to get by and not much else. Do I like paying as much as it costs to go racing? Hell no! Do I understand the position CCS is in with Clear Channel and the business politics involved there? I like to believe that after all these years I understand much better than I use to.

     Kevin (the main man) at CCS is very dedicated to this sport, and busy as well. I would imagine if you could come up with a system that was easy to implement, didn't need more equipment or manpower, and would at least maintain the number of race entries per event as is currently, I bet Kevin would listen to such a proposal optimistically. Until you can come up with such a proposal that benefits not only the racers, but CCS as well, I think your not going to get anywhere with this. Good luck! :)

Quote(Just as an example to show how it's seen from the other side of the coin.)

    Flawed? In what way? The goal of CCS/Clear Channel is ultimately to make money. The people who run CCS GENUINELY care about racing, yet they so often are made out to be the bad guys. The system is set-up the way it is to encourage racers to run more classes and for ease of figuring. Can you blame CCS for wanting to make money?

I've addressed this issue many times specifically from this point of view...

Given the fact that winning the championship is based on volume of points, it is skewed to offer those who have excess income to enter many multiple classes to ensure that they can possibly win their championship.

On the flip side, those that don't want to spend excessive amounts of money on a championship decide not to bother.

If we look at this based on the bell shaped curve, the guys willing to drop the cake to buy seven to ten entries, and tires are at a smaller end of the curve....

How will that make money?  So, CCS gets $500 in entry fees from one or two guys per region....

If a championship were limited to one's best five or so entries per weekend....

You might get more of the guys entering two to three races a weekend to enter five.  

Two guys dropping $500?  Or twenty five dropping $300?  It's pretty logical to me.  $1000 vs $7500...The availability of the track is the same.  If it's not filled up, there's money to be made.

Get one of those guys to crash out of a weekend that is spending a lot of money, and you got nothin' when he's injuried or is bike can't be repaired for the next weekend...or the rest of the year.  Loose one of the twenty-five, and one still has good income all year and a good and honorable race for a championship.

In 1993, I won't my regional championship.  I ran nine races a weekend, and I won a lot of them.  With nine races, available to me on my 600, I wanted to wrap up my championship a whole weekend early so that I could finish out my whole AMA season.  

The points structure was different too.  A mistake chasing Jason Pridmore lead to me crashing and missing one race during a weekend that allowed a good friend of mine to beat me in one of the class championships that year.  I won the other eight.

Anyway, limit the number of classes allowed to count toward the overall championship and change the points structure.  The possible championship would be a little more exciting and better financially for the organization.  

It would be more attractive to the majority of the riders.  

I've made my case for years.  

Super Dave... that's probably one of the best solutions I've heard towards the PI/points issue.

As for getting another/different bike... BS! Why should I have to ride a different or another bike bike just to get a championship. It should be equal, regarless of the cc's and Dave's solution would go towards doing that.