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

[Stone]

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.

 
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.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

     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).

[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.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

     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.

[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]

Utilize 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]

    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.

[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. :)

[dlgygax]

Ok, 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]

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).

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