The current points system WT...????

Started by Stone, June 10, 2005, 11:52:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stone

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).

Old808

hehehehehehe  ;D

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

AM_#726

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

Zac

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.

trussdude

Stone

Stop complaining and race with the big boys!!!

MudDawg


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.

Roger@ASMA

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...)

Stone

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 ;)

CESTODE


GSXR RACER MIKE

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! :)
Smites are a cowards way of feeling brave!   :jerkoff:
Mike Williams - 2 GSXR 750's
Former MW Region Expert #58
Racing exclusively with CCS since '96
MODERATOR

Super Dave

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

dryheat

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.

Stone

QuoteI'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.

 
Snip!!!!


Wow...I kinda like your answer better than the other guys. Being self employed for 17 years I found that it was best to always push forward. Failed/flawed operating issues were addressed and solved...even if it took a couple of years. To make excuses for failure is just that.....an excuse.

I really think that Kevin should address this issue...

Super Dave

Go for it guys.

Write it up.

Send it to Kevin.  Put it up here.  Now's the time to act.  

I've tried many times to get it set up differently, I've explained how CCS/CCE might make more money.  

Personally, I'm kind of exhausted.  I've had a CCS license since 1988, and simple changes are hard to get action on.  

CCS rules did not allow pump gas a few years ago.  I made CCS aware of the issue, and it wasn't changed for a few years.
Super Dave

GSXR RACER MIKE

#14
     My point of view comes from the fact that how many of you actually belive that there are more than about 20 racers per region who would actually have a chance at a top 10 plate if it went by the proposed system? The current system allows someone who is less skilled to go after something that is attainable to them thru running more races. There are only a handful of people who will ever be consistent front runners each season in each class, with occasional visiters to the top 5 thru out the season. In my opinion it wouldn't take too long for most people to  figure out that they don't have a chance at a top 10 plate thru a system with limited classes that count toward the top 10 plates. Great idea for the front running top 5 who don't always finish but still want on overall championship, but not so good of an idea if you want to keep the 'carrot' at an attainable reach for the average racers (which are the majority of the Experts).
Smites are a cowards way of feeling brave!   :jerkoff:
Mike Williams - 2 GSXR 750's
Former MW Region Expert #58
Racing exclusively with CCS since '96
MODERATOR

Super Dave

But the same system has been in place since about 1990.  I don't think there were ever any number one plates before the 1991 season in the regional events...none that I saw.

A rider on an SV would have a hard time riding enough classes to be reasonably competitive to try to get a fair number of points.  Ed Key should probably be the number one plate holder in the middle part of the country region.  Additionally, there are a good number of lightweight riders that have shown that they are "front runners".  

On the flips side of that, there are a number of front runners on 600's that come and go from area to organization, not necessarily commiting to the series.  They can run enough races to make up enough points to be in the top ten.  I've done that too.

So, what's the question?

How many riders can enter a "large number" of races to win the championship?

How many rider can enter "fewer than a large number" or races to attempt to win the championship?

Is it twenty?  Maybe?  Maybe not?  It's certainly more than five.  

Would it or could it attract more riders that might actually attempt to try to get the number one plate?

Would it carry more prestige?  Would sponsors care?

Years ago, my sponsors seemed to care more that I was going to race in an AMA event vs a club event for a championship.  

How does the AFM do it?  Anyone know?  I'd just assume that the guy that had the number one plate be the biggest, baddest guy out there.  Give it to the guy that wins Unlimited Grand Prix.

But I know that won't sell more race entries in other classes.

Allow a rider to enter as many classes as they want.  Only allow a riders five best finishes to count toward the overall championship.  If you can win nine class championships, great.  That costs a whole lot of money, but it's good if you can do it.  But recognize that some bikes, and riders, can't race in a "huge" number of classes.  Is five reasonable?  It's still a great expense, as the average number of entries per rider seems to have fallen from less than a decade ago.


If you're entering three classes now, and if the new structure allowed only one's five best finishes to count toward the over all championship, would you spent that small extra amount to try to be there in the end?

Think about that bell shaped curve.
Super Dave

GSXR RACER MIKE

#16
     Take someone who averages 2nd in their races, they get 60 points per race, times 5 classes, that's 300 points per event toward the overall championship. Now take someone who's average finishes are 11th place, that's 40 points per race, 200 points per event. The 2nd place racer could literally skip every 3rd event and still have as many points as the 11th place average finisher. I still don't see how this would encourage the 11th place average finishing racer to try and go for a top 10 plate when they statistically have no chance?

     To take this further, the top 10 plates would end up being divided between a variety of all the groups of classes. Those basic catagories would be UL/HW, MW, & LW/TWINS and the remaining classes. So since you figure someone like Ed Key's seasons by the small number of races he didn't win, you would see racers like him from each basic catagory in the Top 10 numbers for sure.

     I don't have a problem with the deservingly fast AND consistent racers earning the Top 10 number plates, that's how it should be in a perfect world. BUT, with only the top 3 or so fastest racers in each basic catagory realistically being able to earn top 10 plates for the season I can't see someone outside of the top 5 in any class being able to strive for one of those plates.
Smites are a cowards way of feeling brave!   :jerkoff:
Mike Williams - 2 GSXR 750's
Former MW Region Expert #58
Racing exclusively with CCS since '96
MODERATOR

dlgygax

Not meant to be confusing, but what about this:

Utilize overall classes to define top 10 plates; example: lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and unlimited.  Other classes also?  There are top 10 plate holders in each class.  Riders can enter races based on equipment classification as we do now.  Top 10 plates are based on points earned in each overall class.  Don't worry about superbike vs. supersport, and let the F-40 guys have the points in their respective equipment classes; we're not fast enough (few exceptions; you know who you are) to have any huge impact in the rest of the races anyway.  Besides, they paid their money, let it count.

Multiple duplicate numbers on a race grid?  We don't get scored without a transponder so that problem is solved; transponders are unique to each rider.  What about identifying a rider for meatball flags?  Use a portable electronic marquee at the tower that displays the rider's last name along with their number (easy to read also).  Again, the transponder can be used to identify the rider in situations where numbers and physical appearances are similar.  Red flag assessment of cause?  Identify the rider after the incident has occurred in the same manner.  Blend line violation?  No meatball; you just don't get scored in that race.  Use the marquee to identify a rider and forfeiture of that race.  

Retain the individual race championships/podiums with points as we do now with the addition of number plate recipients as defined above.  Lots of trophies for lots of riders at the year's end.

Result?  Riders get more competitive in overall class competition, more people enter more races, CCS revenue goes up, and those with low number plates get the respect/recognition they deserve within their respective entered classes.  In the event of a points tie, use the P/I within the class.  

Zac

QuoteUtilize overall classes to define top 10 plates; example: lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and unlimited.  

AHRMA awards a number one plate for each class champion, and they append a letter to denote the class (i.e. 1A = 350GP, 1E = Formula 500, etc.).

I think i would be quite confusing, but AHRMA makes it work.

-z.

Super Dave

No, it's still confusing in AHRMA.  And AHRMA's having issues with road racing entries.

Their points count toward one class.  Only so many races count toward the overall championship.  Best ones are the ones that count.
Super Dave

Super Dave

Quote    Take someone who averages 2nd in their races, they get 60 points per race, times 5 classes, that's 300 points per event toward the overall championship. Now take someone who's average finishes are 11th place, that's 40 points per race, 200 points per event. The 2nd place racer could literally skip every 3rd event and still have as many points as the 11th place average finisher. I still don't see how this would encourage the 11th place average finishing racer to try and go for a top 10 plate when they statistically have no chance?

     To take this further, the top 10 plates would end up being divided between a variety of all the groups of classes. Those basic catagories would be UL/HW, MW, & LW/TWINS and the remaining classes. So since you figure someone like Ed Key's seasons by the small number of races he didn't win, you would see racers like him from each basic catagory in the Top 10 numbers for sure.

     I don't have a problem with the deservingly fast AND consistent racers earning the Top 10 number plates, that's how it should be in a perfect world. BUT, with only the top 3 or so fastest racers in each basic catagory realistically being able to earn top 10 plates for the season I can't see someone outside of the top 5 in any class being able to strive for one of those plates.

Ok, shouldn't the racers that consistently have top finished have the top numbers?

I'm not sure what the point of the numbers are unless we should start giving away race finishes in a similar fashion.  Would we like to do it based on 1099's and IRS filings?  How about personal handicaps for vision, reaction speed, age, and the like?

Statistically, a racer won't average any points unless they actually race and finish.  Robbie Jensen came to Blackhawk last May, and, statistically, he should have won some races to get Yamaha money.  Should the rest of us not have shown up?  He didn't win.  I think he won a race, but not in the Middleweight classes.
Super Dave

GSXR RACER MIKE

     As I said before, I think the fastest racers do deserve the top 10 plates, but that's not my point. My original and continueing point is that I don't personally believe this would be a system which would encourage more racers to run for top 10 plates and ultimately generate more revenue for CCS.

     In '03 I was winning 9 class championships and was 5th in the overall points championship between the MW/GP/GL regions with 4 races left in the season. The ironic thing was that I was so consistent that season, at the back of the Expert pack that is. I only ran 4 classes all season long, but I did exactly that, ALL SEASON LONG. Because enough racers were b*tching about someone else in the same situation as myself I intentionally didn't race the next 3 events to allow everyone else to catch up in the points and have the 9 championships I was leading as well as get out of the top 10 championship. Again, I only raced 4 classes at every event during the season and accomplished this.

     Throwing the more money for CCS issue to the side for a moment, I think what your looking for here to avoid my situation from happening in the future is to go to a very aggresive points system. Since top 10 are the only concern here, why not only pay for those positions? How about this:

1st  - 55  points
2nd - 45
3rd  - 36
4th  - 28
5th  - 21
6th  - 15
7th  - 10
8th  - 6
9th  - 3
10th - 1

     This decreases points paid per finishing position by 1 less point per lower finishing position, starting with a 10 point spread between 1st and 2nd, down to a 2 point jump between 9th and 10th place, this heavily rewards the winner and still pays well for those in 2nd and 3rd. If your fast, you get rewarded.

     If you really want to be fair to all the racers you need to limit the number of races included in the top 10 championship to 4. This will allow those that don't want to race outside of the basic group they run to do so, a LW only racer or an Unlimited only racer could have a chance on their bike just as much as a MW racer who could run up to 10 classes on 1 bike. This would allow the people who only want to run 1 bike to do so in classes that are for their respective bike. Again, I personally don't think this type of system would generate more revenue for CCS, but it would accomplish the fastest racers getting the top 10 plates across all classes. :)
Smites are a cowards way of feeling brave!   :jerkoff:
Mike Williams - 2 GSXR 750's
Former MW Region Expert #58
Racing exclusively with CCS since '96
MODERATOR

dlgygax

QuoteOk, shouldn't the racers that consistently have top finished have the top numbers?


That's exactly the point, SD.  

We recognize there's always going to be the Jensens' who are there for the money, but are not at all CCS events.  The rest of us 'clubbers' are there for most or all scheduled events and are the core financial support for CCS.  The money chasers don't bother us (respective of points) because at the end of the season, they're not in the CCS points runnings, nor do they care.  The rest who are should be recognized for their achievements.

We all know who the HMFIC's are on the track, but the sponsers who review the overall stat's may not.  There's got to be a solution to this that benefits both the racers and the organization.

rotoboge

QuoteI 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).

Stonie: 1)go buy a 600, 2)if it was based on PI, then the guy that raced a few races and won would be champ?, 3)put a decal on your new trailer stating your PI, 4)enough already ;D

Super Dave

QuoteStonie: 1)go buy a 600, 2)if it was based on PI, then the guy that raced a few races and won would be champ?, 3)put a decal on your new trailer stating your PI, 4)enough already ;D


LOL!!!!!!!
Super Dave

Super Dave

QuoteThat's exactly the point, SD.  

We recognize there's always going to be the Jensens' who are there for the money, but are not at all CCS events.

Which was exacty my point...

"Ok, shouldn't the racers that consistently have top finished have the top numbers? "

If one shows up only a couple of weekends, you're not consistent.  That person wouldn't be a factor in the club championship.

Mike, I do agree with the different points structure.  The current program pays down beyond a normal grid.  So, if a racer finishes last, they might get half as many points, or more, than a winner of a race.  

Go for it guys!  I've given my input.  Figure it out, write it up, post it here, create support, and submit it now to CCS so that it gets done for 2006.

I've carried number one's.  Your turn.


Super Dave

ahastings

#26
I like Super Dave's solution. Just count your best 5 or so finishes and change the points structure a little bit, so the overall champion is a combination of the better and consistent riders, not just the ones who buy the most entries. The way it is now it is a hollow championship. In the whole scheme of things I don't really think it will effect the number of entries, because it is only a low percentage of racers actually chasing the championships anyway. The points system really needs to be revamped. How can someone who consistently finishes 15th to 20th win a championship just because he hit all the rounds and be proud of it. If that were me I would be embarrassed to even wear that single digit plate.
And while I am complaining how about gridding by points.
Arnie
A&M Motorsports
Mid-Atlantic VP Fuel Vendor