Freezing Saddles 2015

[hozn]

@jrenaut 100404 wrote:

It’s not a trivial thing to manage. It’s certainly possible, but I’m not sure I can commit a ton of time to working on the website this year, and while I wouldn’t speak for hozn, I get the impression he’s in something of the same boat. It’s an easier option for next year.

Yeah, same boat. I still owe dasgeh a spreadsheet (this weekend, I hope!). New job. Quite busy.

[dkel]

Apparently there are no A-type personalities among cyclists, otherwise it would take forever just to decide how to organize this after two years already in the bag.

[Vicegrip]

@ShawnoftheDread 100403 wrote:

Modified random proposal: start with last year’s individual results, crossing out anyone who doesn’t re-up or who opts for slacker team. Top 10 are all separate teams (or 9, depending on number of teams needed). The next 10 are placed on those teams in reverse order (#20 placed with # 1, #11 placed with #10, etc). Then everyone else is drawn out of a hat for placement on a team.

Though personally I prefer our usual handicaps.

@Steve O 100422 wrote:

This is identical to my proposal, and is what I modeled that resulted in consistently more competitive results than last year’s handicapping system.

Hindsight can also be considered learning from experience. I like the idea to distribute the top 20 that reup in 2 rounds and fill out the teams via random draw from there. Besides it is for fun right? A close finish between a good number of teams would be cool the fun is there simply from the people.

[hozn]

What about delaying team formation (is this what was already proposed?) and using the first week or two as the “qualifying laps” for team seeding rather than relying on self-reported handicaps. The miles would still count, of course; hopefully that would discourage soft pedaling the qualifying run.

[TwoWheelsDC]

Not my best work, but I have a paper to write…

[TwoWheelsDC]

Not my best work, but I have to get back to my paper on the Carbon Tax….

[cyclingfool]

No helmet?! That rider’s gonna die! :rolleyes:

[ShawnoftheDread]

@Steve O 100422 wrote:

This is identical to my proposal, and is what I modeled that resulted in consistently more competitive results than last year’s handicapping system.

What, you think I read your posts?

[dasgeh]

@cyclingfool 100463 wrote:

No helmet?! That rider’s gonna die! :rolleyes:

Wait, are you on my facebook feed?

[Vicegrip]

@hozn 100460 wrote:

What about delaying team formation (is this what was already proposed?) and using the first week or two as the “qualifying laps” for team seeding rather than relying on self-reported handicaps. The miles would still count, of course; hopefully that would discourage soft pedaling the qualifying run.

That sounds clever and doable too. How about the top 20 returnees from last year get split out per last years results and everyone else does the 2 weeks thing?

[Steve O]

@hozn 100460 wrote:

What about delaying team formation (is this what was already proposed?) and using the first week or two as the “qualifying laps” for team seeding rather than relying on self-reported handicaps.

Better yet: why don’t we delay until March 15? Then we’ll make all the teams perfectly even and watch the fun ensue!!!

[timo96]

@Vicegrip 100459 wrote:

Hindsight can also be considered learning from experience. I like the idea to distribute the top 20 that reup in 2 rounds and fill out the teams via random draw from there. Besides it is for fun right? A close finish between a good number of teams would be cool the fun is there simply from the people.

This is the way to do it.

[rcannon100]

Any further thoughts? Again, I like Steve’s modified random – but the problem is, I think, that it cannot account for new ringers who would through the statistics. If a mythical Tom Kellie were to be assigned to one of the teams and if Tom Kellie had not played last year – this mythical uber rider would throw the game.

Does that bring us back to straight up handicaps? And if so, based on what period? September through November?

We need to move to consensus. Which is the right option?

[dkel]

@rcannon100 100862 wrote:

We need to move to consensus. Which is the right option?

I like any option that highlights the top 20: since I’ve never been in the top of any sport…until Freezing Saddles! Makes me happy anytime someone says “top 20,” since I was 18th overall last year.

Thanks for letting me swell with pride for a moment, everyone.

[rcannon100]

And how do you account for a top twenty rider who did not participate last year?

[Author]

Posts