BAFS 2020 teams and rules discussion

[chuxtr]

Yeah, I know it’s still summer weather but since it’s now technically fall I thought this would be as good a time as any to open up a discussion thread so that whatever we decide to do for 2020 won’t be a last minute discussion/decision.

NOTE that this is a DISCUSSION thread, not a DECISION thread. Any and all discussion, criticism (constructive and polite), suggestions, etc. are welcome. But that doesn’t mean that just because it’s discussed that it means that’s what we’re going to do. What we end up doing will depend on a lot of different factors, including (but not necessarily limited to): willing and able volunteers, feasibility to implement, sensibility, understandability (is that even a word?), etc.

So with that in mind … Some things we’d like to hear from y’all about (but not limited to just these few things):

1. What did you think of the mileage cap (for team points, not individual points)? Scrap? Keep? Keep but up the mileage?

2. What do you think about trying to make the teams more “local,” i.e., teammates from the same area? But still trying to “balance” the teams (based on past Freezing Saddles participation) so that no one team is “stacked” with high mileage riders?

3. Conversely, we could just make team assignments totally random. I think Steve O has done some analysis to indicate that this doesn’t necessarily change the results in terms of differences between teams.

4. What do you think about smaller size teams? Last year we had 19 teams with 10 riders each. It’s been suggested that Freezing Saddles is more competitive with smaller teams because every team member’s miles (or lack thereof) count more. Is something like 6 riders too small for a team?

5. Keep the current point system? 10 points for the first ride mile of the day (as an incentive to ride) but 1 point for every mile afterwards.

Again, it’s not going to be possible to do everything (or maybe even many of the things) that people suggest. But this is your chance to discuss and make suggestions for the above or anything else.

THANX!

Topic

[Shepard]

Just a couple of thoughts.

I generally enjoyed the mileage cap and point system – thought it helped balance the teams.

With regard to team selection and size. I’ve had both local and non-local teams. With local teams there are more opportunities for meet ups and rides but the non-local encouraged me to join other rides and ride with a different variety of folks. So no real preference.

It might be fun to try random teams just to see if Steve O’s calculations bear out.

Smaller teams would be fine if we could drop non-performers. A team of six would be devastated if it has two folks who decided they would only ride when the weather was “nice.” Teams of ten can better handle a couple fair weather riders.

[Subby]

Raise the cap to 150, randomize teams, 10 riders per team, drop the lowest mileage rider for each team when calculating team points, otherwise keep the current points system, reject any and all of steveO’s ideas.

[drevil]

@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

1. What did you think of the mileage cap (for team points, not individual points)? Scrap? Keep? Keep but up the mileage?

I like it, but I think it should be upped. Maybe 150?
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

2. What do you think about trying to make the teams more “local,” i.e., teammates from the same area? But still trying to “balance” the teams (based on past Freezing Saddles participation) so that no one team is “stacked” with high mileage riders?

I like this also. From what I’ve seen doing this only the last 3 years, when teams are closer together, it’s easier for them to do spur of the moment rides. It also makes it easier to hang out, because places are closer to them.
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

3. Conversely, we could just make team assignments totally random. I think Steve O has done some analysis to indicate that this doesn’t necessarily change the results in terms of differences between teams.

Meh. This is for fun, mixed with a little competition. I do like the idea that was used in the past where people could opt to join a team that isn’t local.
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

4. What do you think about smaller size teams? Last year we had 19 teams with 10 riders each. It’s been suggested that Freezing Saddles is more competitive with smaller teams because every team member’s miles (or lack thereof) count more. Is something like 6 riders too small for a team?

Six seems too small (in my current train of thought). But I don’t think it should be bigger than 10. 8-10 maybe?
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

5. Keep the current point system? 10 points for the first ride mile of the day (as an incentive to ride) but 1 point for every mile afterwards.

This is good.
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

Again, it’s not going to be possible to do everything (or maybe even many of the things) that people suggest. But this is your chance to discuss and make suggestions for the above or anything else.

THANX!

One thing that seems like a good idea (at the moment, but can be convinced otherwise) is to have a two or three week reshuffle of those that are hardly participating. So if they can’t get a minimum number of points at the end of this first period, then those folks get moved to a “casual” team, and those on the waitlist that have been meeting minimum points get moved onto the teams (randomly). I know folks that wanted to play competitively that ended up on teams with slackers, then they become indifferent to the game because their team isn’t competitive any more.

I realize feelings can get hurt, but if they aren’t doing minimal points requirement, then maybe they’re better on the casual team?

[chuxtr]

@drevil 193349 wrote:

I realize feelings can get hurt, but if they aren’t doing minimal points requirement, then maybe they’re better on the casual team?

The idea of a “casual” team(s) is an interesting one. How would you define a casual rider in terms of weekly rides/mileage?

[chuxtr]

@Subby 193347 wrote:

reject any and all of steveO’s ideas.

This is a given. But I will amuse him by pretending to listen.

[drevil]

@chuxtr 193350 wrote:

The idea of a “casual” team(s) is an interesting one. How would you define a casual rider in terms of weekly rides/mileage?

At the very least, someone who doesn’t get 55 points a week, i.e., someone who doesn’t even ride a mile 5 days of the week.

EDIT: I changed my mind to lower the threshold, because I realize not everyone can ride every single day.

[Shepard]

That seems like a good baseline.

[chuxtr]

@drevil 193352 wrote:

At the very least, someone who doesn’t get 77 points a week, i.e., someone who doesn’t even ride 1 mile a day.

How soon would you start dropping riders from teams? After the first week? Two weeks? Would you drop a rider who has previously met the minimum but then doesn’t in a subsequent week?

[Shepard]

Maybe it’s based on an average over the first 2 to 3 weeks. That way unusual weather events won’t knock a bunch of folks off. Also, self-selection might work if we have both “competitive” and “casual” teams.

[josh]

I like Subby’s idea he tossed out earlier this year — individual leaderboard is based solely on miles ridden (no cap), team leaderboard is based solely on days ridden (at least 1 mile). I’m indifferent to the size of teams, but I like local teams (although they’re more of a pain to set up). Alternatively, we could select captains from a volunteer pool, and have them draft players (this is cycling, drafting is important right?).

[Brandon]

@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

1. What did you think of the mileage cap (for team points, not individual points)? Scrap? Keep? Keep but up the mileage?

I wasn’t really a fan of it. I live FAR out of DC in Vienna and am an everyday commuter for the most part. Family and kid commitments typically limit my participation on weekends for group rides and with the length of my commute, it makes any sort of coffee/happy hours difficult as well. Basically, my participation has been limited to my commute for the most part. My first year I really felt like I was able to contribute to my team with the high mileage i racked up commuting so I didn’t feel awful if I missed days on the weekend. But with a mileage cap my contribution to the team is limited, especially since I’m not able to partake in the many social aspects of the game (which was the goal I realize for the cap anyways). And I don’t care about the individual points, I’m not out to “win” anything, I just want to let some others take advantage of my high miles to the benefit of a team.

@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

2. What do you think about trying to make the teams more “local,” i.e., teammates from the same area? But still trying to “balance” the teams (based on past Freezing Saddles participation) so that no one team is “stacked” with high mileage riders?

The more “local” a team is for me raises the likelihood that I could participate in some of the social activities
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

4. What do you think about smaller size teams? Last year we had 19 teams with 10 riders each. It’s been suggested that Freezing Saddles is more competitive with smaller teams because every team member’s miles (or lack thereof) count more. Is something like 6 riders too small for a team?

I like the current team sizes
@chuxtr 193345 wrote:

5. Keep the current point system? 10 points for the first ride mile of the day (as an incentive to ride) but 1 point for every mile afterwards.

Yes

[Judd]

Each team picks a GC rider who’s mileage is the only one that counts. The rest of the team serves as domestiques by forming a hive around the GC rider to block out the cold weather.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve O]

I’m ambivalent about kicking people out unless they are truly barely riding or not at all. One of the key objectives of Freezing Saddles is to encourage people who have never commuted in the winter before to try it. There are a lot of veteran players now who did their first wintertime commute because of Freezing Saddles. Getting those people out there sometimes, but without the expectation that they can go from zero winter riding to blizzard winter riding, is good.

That said, there were some players last year (and previous years) who literally dropped off the bottom, with single-digit ride days for the whole competition. Finding the line between these and the nervous newbies is the trick.

I prefer to err on the side of keeping people in who show some signs of life. A mileage cap theoretically serves to make those peoples’s contributions somewhat more meaningful, which might help keep them motivated.
For this reason, I would be opposed to raising the mileage cap and possibly in favor of lowering it. It only affected a relatively small percentage of the riders last year (I used to know this number, but have forgotten it). Raising the cap might provide a dozen or twenty riders with the ability to raise their team contribution, but is likely to stretch the overall standings out, making the overall days+miles competition even less interesting.

[Steve O]

I do wonder if over time the nature of Freezing Saddles has changed such that it feels daunting to newbie winter commuters who don’t want to be pressured into riding every day, but just want to give winter commuting a try.

[Shepard]

This may be entirely too complicated but is there a way to create a points system that rewards the nervous newbie with extra points for riding more often or longer. In other words can we create a scoring system that rewards challenging oneself and improvement.

[Author]

Replies