Discussion on Team Points Cap and Non-regional Teams

[Hancockbs]

@chuxtr 189048 wrote:

All,

The fact that there was as wide a spread in the results as there was means that a lot of people didn’t ride to their expected weekly mileage. I’m guessing that Team 7 rode to more (probably a lot more) than their expected weekly mileage. In the end, it all comes down to how many people on a team are able/willing to ride as many miles as possible.

The 100 mile cap actually made me ride farther than I would have otherwise. I expected to get 50-75 miles per week, but having the cap encouraged me to meet it every week, which I did. So, yes, I as one member of Team 7, did ride farther than anticipated.

[Hancockbs]

@chuxtr 189066 wrote:

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

Where we all ride our bikes separately together!

[huskerdont]

@AlanA 189098 wrote:

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

I want to be on #TeamAntiSocial, but of course I don’t want to be captain. That would be too social.

[ChristoB50]

Could one join #TeamAntiSocial, but request that nobody else ever be notified of the new member? :p

[EasyRider]

@Hancockbs 189117 wrote:

The 100 mile cap actually made me ride farther than I would have otherwise. I expected to get 50-75 miles per week, but having the cap encouraged me to meet it every week, which I did. So, yes, I as one member of Team 7, did ride farther than anticipated.

My experience was similar. I can’t recall if the registration question was how many miles do you ride a week, or how many miles will you ride? I want to think it was the former, and I said something like 80, which was truthful.

For team assignments, either question (do/will) might be too blunt an instrument. Perhaps a couple more simple yes/no questions could be used help characterize riders (high-mileage commuters; weekend centurions, etc) so that they could be more evenly distributed across teams. And past BAFS data could also be used. I also like the idea of hidden special days (like a Daily Double from Jeopardy).

[Steve O]

@Jessica Hirschhorn 189102 wrote:

I had an idea for next year. It would be more fair to distribute the RETIRED…

It’s not just the retired. People like me, whose children are grown, also have an advantage over people with families at home.
And Feds who get furloughed have an advantage over those who don’t.
Etc.
So I’m not sure which of these and how many of these variables should be captured and considered.

[Steve O]

Great discussion.
The suggestions about how to learn more about riders in advance in order to try to pre-balance the teams are all fine ideas, but I’m still sticking to my prediction that it won’t work to make them more competitive, no matter who does it and no matter how hard they try and no matter what information they have.

[Jessica Hirschhorn]

Excellent points. I guess the every day commuters have their advantage too. Suspect it all balances out in the end.
Regards, Jessica

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve O]

@Jessica Hirschhorn 189131 wrote:

Excellent points. I guess the every day commuters have their advantage too. Suspect it all balances out in the end.

Actually, that would be great. The whole problem is that it doesn’t balance out in the end (or even halfway through). But we don’t know why.

[jrenaut]

We could go the NASCAR route and take the top 8 teams and reset their points to zero with 2 weeks to go. We could have an independent commission rank the teams based on non-mileage factors and have head-to-head playoffs in March. Teams in 4 divisions and the division winners go head to head at the end. The possibilities are endless.

[creadinger]

It seems like problem we’re trying to fix is the team leaderboard wire-wire winner issue and how there’s very little movement once the standings are established? We saw before how without a mileage cap the top 1-3 teams run away with the win. And this year it seems like with a mileage cap, it was too difficult for any teams to make up for missed miles to catch up. It could just be that there’s just no solution to that issue.

Take the NFL, which has implemented some really tough “fairness” based rules likes salary caps, player incentives, the draft, scheduling, etc… to even up the teams and even with all of that, they can’t seem to keep the stupid Patriots from winning or near the Superbowl every season for the past 15 years. Ugh… Or, I’m not a huge English Premier League follower but in their table after the first month or two the teams seem to fall into 3 categories – those competing for Champions/Europa League, those in the middle, and those avoiding relegation. There’s very little, if any movement from one category to another right?

I’m definitely a fan of some tweaks to make it more interesting but I just don’t know if this type of competition is capable of big swings on a leaderboard. The fun part should probably be left up to the Pointless Prizes and the creativity with that but the leaderboard is the leaderboard.

[SarahBee]

@jrenaut 189133 wrote:

We could go the NASCAR route and take the top 8 teams and reset their points to zero with 2 weeks to go. We could have an independent commission rank the teams based on non-mileage factors and have head-to-head playoffs in March. Teams in 4 divisions and the division winners go head to head at the end. The possibilities are endless.

Jon- that is madness… March madness!!!!

[chuxtr]

@Steve O 189129 wrote:

I’m still sticking to my prediction that it won’t work to make them more competitive, no matter who does it and no matter how hard they try and no matter what information they have.

I agree with Steve O. As someone who’s raced and run a race team, FS isn’t about ability as much as it is about motivation/desire. The frontrunner teams don’t have the “best” riders; they simply have people who are more motivated and willing to ride more miles … regardless of the type of riding they do, e.g., everyday commuters vs mostly on weekend riders. It’s not really possible to build teams that are more or less equal because the quality that makes a difference is intangible and not quantifiable. Historical data about miles and ride days are surrogates, but — as has been said and even I said when I started putting together teams this year — past performance is not a predictor of future results. Just like every mutual fund prospectus says.

Zip codes and a random number generator.

[Mtansill]

@chuxtr 189136 wrote:

Zip codes and a random number generator.

I could get behind this. I mean, we tried some interesting variations this year and saw what happened. And we’ve more-or-less determined that there is no perfect system. So why not just divide based on zip codes and random number generator next year?

[drevil]

Here’s the solution!

https://www.randomlists.com/team-generator?items=BobJoanDavidAlanRodChrisJoshchrisAlStephenSteveKurtNigelJessicaIaindavidSteveDougRobertSarahderEricEricjeffBradNealKomorebirickyShawnTimmyCurtisSamanthaLachlanChristyLutherEricRumiMattToddMaediAdrianaDanMarcMillieMiaDeeBradJoRobinLouisCathyChrisNadineDavidPeter%C3%A2%CB%9C%E2%82%AC%C3%AF%C2%B8%C2%8FKrisLSGJimAlisonChuckKenCarlosMatthiaseunTomPaulaBrianStevePaytonErinRyanKevinBryanChrisDanaHFScottLilliSamAdamClaudiaKenSteveEricHenryJonathanKenJonathanEricChrisPhilLaurenRachelDaveAdrianJennPhilipJuddElizabethSteveToubobMarkTereseaCarolErikaJasonShaneMarcPeterAnnesamLesliePierreBoomerBarbMikeRetroAndrewSteveBrandonJonBillBenRachAndreaKellyAnneMattRobinGraceTomglennAndrewShiraLaurieEddieBryanBillJohnCarolynFrankWilliamGeorgeKateJohnMaryandyBenRichLaurieNevadaKRichardErinnEstebanRobertTedJ.C.TomJBrianGeorgeRyanJasonMcKarenAnnieCameronMikePanchoHugoBillyCharLuHannahJamieMaryJoeHeatherJohnhakaMorganPhilCAllonAdamBeckyKatieRyanBrookeGretaclaudiaGeriRileyAndyJonElizabethDTaraKaren&grp=20

[Author]

Posts