Discussion on Team Points Cap and Non-regional Teams

[Steve O]

@chuxtr 189063 wrote:

amused (or is it bemused … or both?)

These two words are not synonyms, even though they are similar sounding. I was bemused, not amused.

[Steve O]

@bentbike33 189060 wrote:

I think the reason why the team competition was not a spirited as we thought it would be with the mileage cap is that the wrong metric was used for attempting to achieve team balance. Everyday riding is much more important with the mileage cap than distance if you look at the standings. Team 7 had 7 everyday riders, Ice Ice Baby had 6, and License to Chill had 5. In addition to miles, we should ask “how many days did you ride during last year’s FS?” Then you could do a 2-stage allocation, e.g., balance the >70-day riders among teams by mileage, then allocate everyone else balanced by mileage.

Perhaps, but people have been trying to balance teams for 7 years and have failed every time. I have no doubt that whoever takes it on next year (bentbike?) will similarly fail to create competitiveness. I do not know why this is.

If we want more competitiveness we have to come up with a system that works even if the team balancing effort fails. Some sort of adjustable handicap or something. Or rebalancing during the competition. Or something else. If we rely solely on the assigner to create balanced teams, then it will not be competitive. I will bet a beer on it.

[bentbike33]

@Steve O 189072 wrote:

Perhaps, but people have been trying to balance teams for 7 years and have failed every time. I have no doubt that whoever takes it on next year (bentbike?) will similarly fail to create competitiveness. I do not know why this is.

If we want more competitiveness we have to come up with a system that works even if the team balancing effort fails. Some sort of adjustable handicap or something. Or rebalancing during the competition. Or something else. If we rely solely on the assigner to create balanced teams, then it will not be competitive. I will bet a beer on it.

Past performance is not a predictor of future results.

[Steve O]

@bentbike33 189078 wrote:

Past performance is not a predictor of future results.

No. But as mentioned, I’m willing to bet a beer on it.

I think my point still stands, though. If we can create a system that makes the game competitive regardless of how poorly or well the assigner does, that will be an improvement. Currently, competitiveness is entirely dependent on a single individual’s best efforts sometime in December before the game even begins. Past performance indicates that is an extremely difficult challenge.

[LhasaCM]

@bentbike33 189078 wrote:

Past performance is not a predictor of future results.

It can have some predictive value, but it is by no means a guarantee. (I think I ended up within about 20 miles of what I rode in last year’s FS overall, even though looking at what I rode week to week is highly variable.)

[jrenaut]

@LhasaCM 189082 wrote:

It can have some predictive value, but it is by no means a guarantee. (I think I ended up within about 20 miles of what I rode in last year’s FS overall, even though looking at what I rode week to week is highly variable.)

Although you (like me) are primarily a transportational cyclist. Typically more rides, but shorter. Less likely to go out for 50 mile rides on the weekends. I think part of the problem is trying to make this fun and encouraging for riders like you and me, riders like Bob James, newbie riders who mothball the bike November-May, and all the other types out there. The ten point bonus for me is a huge motivator, but if I typically did 300 miles a week, and it was 27 degrees on a Sunday and sleeting, I’d more than likely be on the couch.

I don’t really have a point here except that it’s complicated.

[LhasaCM]

@jrenaut 189083 wrote:

Although you (like me) are primarily a transportational cyclist. Typically more rides, but shorter. Less likely to go out for 50 mile rides on the weekends. I think part of the problem is trying to make this fun and encouraging for riders like you and me, riders like Bob James, newbie riders who mothball the bike November-May, and all the other types out there. The ten point bonus for me is a huge motivator, but if I typically did 300 miles a week, and it was 27 degrees on a Sunday and sleeting, I’d more than likely be on the couch.

I don’t really have a point here except that it’s complicated.

Definitely. And avoiding things that are overly encouraging for one rider type that are too discouraging for others.

One “simple” idea that could help make things a little closer without overhauling the whole thing may be, piggybacking on Steve’s “rebalancing” idea, to start with smaller teams assigned the way they’re normally assigned (say 24 teams of , and then after the first month or so – merge teams to “rebalance” the standings that way (ending with 12 teams of 16). That could help address some of the initial guesswork being inherently error-prone (from a statistical sense), without trying to introduce a more complicated scoring system or having endless discussions about handicap systems that drive people away/drive people nuts/whatever.

[ChristoB50]

@jrenaut 189083 wrote:

Although you (like me) are primarily a transportational cyclist. Typically more rides, but shorter. Less likely to go out for 50 mile rides on the weekends. I think part of the problem is trying to make this fun and encouraging for riders like you and me, riders like Bob James, newbie riders who mothball the bike November-May, and all the other types out there. The ten point bonus for me is a huge motivator, but if I typically did 300 miles a week, and it was 27 degrees on a Sunday and sleeting, I’d more than likely be on the couch. I don’t really have a point here except that it’s complicated.

I’ll toss my two cents into the mix, as someone who wasn’t on any team.
Being my first ever winter biking — I wasn’t remotely confident about what level of riding (and thus team points) I might talk myself into over the winter, so I vacillated about signing up until it was too late.
But then, becoming an FS observer / Friend Of FS, definitely prompted me to keep up the winter biking more than I might have, and I joined a few FS activities as well. So now I anticipate no qualms about signing up for FS2020…

Personally I’d find the a-ride-a-day earns base points would be a great motivation for achieving daily riding, even if sleazing (though I might want to consider a sleaze ride must be 2 or 3 mi minimum, vs. 1 mi?) The weekly miles cap is also nice, given that well, it still is winter and cold! My round trip office commute would give me 10 minimum, up to perhaps 25 maximum, miles per riding day based on weather severity and route chosen. (I didn’t bike in any snow or rain this winter, and likely won’t next year, so I’d have to sleaze those days in my condo garage worst case, and count on adding a longer leisure ride during each week.)

I think I would find it easier and more conducive to team events/team camaraderie, being on a regional team of folks relatively nearby… such as an Arlington/Alexandria based team. If I was on a broad DMV team, and someone proposed a group ride over in Maryland, it just wouldn’t happen for me, as likely being too far to bike TO the meet, then bike the group ride itself, then bike back home. (Unless it was an unexpectedly pleasant day in the 40s or more; but even then, I’d probably only be inclined if it was say, in Bethesda, easily reached on the CCT.)

If I’ve done my review correctly, my FS team contribution in points from Jan 1 through Mar 19 would have been, I believe:
400 points for 40 unique days with rides.
753 miles ridden. (4 weeks during FS I exceeded 100mi, for a grand total of 828mi, but I’m counting those 4 as flat 100 points.)

Of course if I had been participating, knowing I was striving to earn points for my team, I’m 99% sure I would have definitely sleazed at least a mile on every one of the other “missing” days, to get 100% daily ride scoring. (Well, I did have a flu bug for 3 days in January that wiped me out…)
And I might have been able to make myself achieve max 100 weekly miles for say, all but 2 weeks in retrospect, if I pushed for it.

[bentbike33]

@ChristoB50 189089 wrote:

Of course if I had been participating, knowing I was striving to earn points for my team, I’m 99% sure I would have definitely sleazed at least a mile on every one of the other “missing” days, to get 100% daily ride scoring. (Well, I did have a flu bug for 3 days in January that wiped me out…)
And I might have been able to make myself achieve max 100 weekly miles for say, all but 2 weeks in retrospect, if I pushed for it.

This is the main reason why past performance is not a predictor of future results. The teams that pull away early have the (usually new) riders with the most radical changes in behavior that we want Freezing Saddles to induce. I think the idea expressed above about combining teams at the mid-point of the competition is brilliant for counteracting this effect. It may increase the social aspect as well: “Come meet your new teammates!”

[AlanA]

@chuxtr 189066 wrote:

We can make that part of the registration process and create #TeamAntiSocial.

I’d be more than happy to be the captain of this team!! :rolleyes:

[creadinger]

@ChristoB50 189089 wrote:

Personally I’d find the a-ride-a-day earns base points would be a great motivation for achieving daily riding, even if sleazing (though I might want to consider a sleaze ride must be 2 or 3 mi minimum, vs. 1 mi?)

I absolutely agree on this. I proposed a 2-3 mile minimum sleaze in year 3, but it didn’t get any traction. Then the next year I did the sleaze thing and rode EVERYday, but decided that it’s just not for me. I don’t care that much. So yeah, I only rode like 30+ days this winter but I did get over 1100 miles too.

I think the cap was a good experiment, but am open to new ideas for next year, including the cap again.

[EasyRider]

@bentbike33 189091 wrote:

This is the main reason why past performance is not a predictor of future results. The teams that pull away early have the (usually new) riders with the most radical changes in behavior that we want Freezing Saddles to induce. I think the idea expressed above about combining teams at the mid-point of the competition is brilliant for counteracting this effect. It may increase the social aspect as well: “Come meet your new teammates!”

I was on Team 7, and I think we led not because riders were newcomers who changed their behavior but because the rules this year suited many of our established, individual routines. For example, this was my first BAFS, but I’ve been riding 10-15 miles round trip to work, year round, since moving here 17 years ago. I was already riding every day, and since 100 miles/7 days=14.28, all I needed to do to maximize my team points was commute 7 days a week (figuratively speaking) instead of 5. I do think being a transportation cyclist put me in good stead.

I’m all for ways of adding more chance to the game … rebalancing teams, or making smaller teams, or having random days when points matter/more or less than others, making riding every day less valuable, etc.

[Jessica Hirschhorn]

I had an idea for next year. It would be more fair to distribute the RETIRED, (or working non-traditional day jobs) folks among the teams. We certainly have the advantage of being to ride all day every day, and avoid short periods of foul weather.

Perhaps it could be included on next years registration form?

Regards, Jessica

PS I had a BLAST as Team Captain and am happy to repeat next year. My spouse was delighted that I found other people to boss around.

[SarahBee]

So I liked the team mileage cap this year, however once we got through the first few weeks, trying to catch other teams on the leaderboard became a real challenge. For example, I tanked my team by having a bad week and not meeting my 100. Knowing I had irreparably cannonballed 17, all I could focus on were individual goals like my mileage goal this year. I recently moved and my commute is at least 10 miles longer per day than before, so I blame myself for underreporting my anticipated mileage that may have botched team assignments. Regional teams make a lot of sense since I can’t always control when I’m working early mornings or nights. I like social events when they are convenient- this year I found myself going on rides with other teams if it fit my schedule better. Most of the MD folks I met when I was on a regional team a few years back and that was a lot of fun since I didn’t know that many fellow cyclists in my neighborhood. Mostly, I just want to thank all the people who volunteer their time and IT skills to make Freezing Saddles the only thing I enjoy about winter. Regardless of the rules, you are all amazing and I appreciate all you do!

[LhasaCM]

@LhasaCM 189055 wrote:

Notwithstanding what Steve O may be compiling: I’d already pulled together a file comparing folks’ “team miles” with their individual miles through 3/17 for the purpose of the “Keepin’ it 100” pointless prize, so it should be pretty easy to update for the final data. I know from what I’ve already looked at that there were about 10% of this year’s participants who hit the mileage cap each week through 3/17 and rode every day. What’s hard to say how many of those people rode less/more/differently because of it (e.g., I’ll push myself to get to 100 this week to hit the cap rather than just stop at 90 and make it up with a longer ride next week). In any event, I have that file at home, so can run a few numbers tonight and share anything of interest with folks here for the good of the debate.

As mentioned, I created an Excel file that combines the “team miles” each person earned alongside the actual miles ridden. In theory, folks can look at it at https://1drv.ms/x/s!AhZs1Wh3AIWjhJ17vh-KZ6ahfVagDA if so inclined.

Some median figures:
1. Miles ridden: 841
2. Miles “lost” due to the 100 miles/week cap: 43
3. Ride days: 67
4. Sleaze days: 7

Other observations:
1. 63 of the 200 participants “lost” no miles, including 9 who rode every day.
2. On the other side of the spectrum, there were about 2 dozen people who hit the 100 mile/week cap every week (ignoring the last two days). More than half of them managed to hit the cap on this last two day week, as well.
3. Without the mileage cap but with the current teams* and assuming the cap had no impact on behavior: the standings would not have been dramatically different. The top two teams would’ve swapped places, but still would’ve been running away with it.
4. Tweaking the scoring (but again assuming that everyone would’ve behaved the same way) so that people got an extra 10 point bonus for a non-sleaze day (e.g., 10 points per day plus another 10 points if you went over 2 miles plus the point per mile) would’ve made the scoring differences look a little smaller, but wouldn’t have had any appreciable difference in the overall competitiveness.
5. Team 18 now has 11 participants.

* As mentioned earlier – there’s no way the current team assignments would’ve been made w/o the weekly cap.

[Author]

Posts