COMSCC championship points system poll

[boltonite]

Yes, I agree: if you reward away event participation AND use a best-of-N system you will make away events even more attractive to those who are competing in the COMSCC time trial series.

[WillM]

RIGHT ON BRUCE!! After all the club is seeking way to increase attendance at away events. In fact, if I had not skipped Summit, I would have won the SSB year end points trophy. That's where the incentive should be: increased points for away events to encourage more participants.

Exactly right! This thread is based on a conversation that was started at the November board meeting. :thumbleft:

Depending on the number of events next year, I would be in favor of best 6-7 out of 8 or best 7-8 out of 9 events. I would also add a multi-track bonus (15 points?) for any competitor who has time trialed at 3 different tracks in a given class. If someone DNF's or DNQ's, they still get the bonus points (but I'm open to debate on that!)

Whatever the "away track" bonus is, I think it should be a set number that is established and printed in the rule book. We should not give different "bonus" points for different tracks (ie: Mosport = 15, Watkins Glen = 20), and we should not change the formula once the season starts.

The goal is to boost attendance at away events while keeping the scoring system simple to understand and tabulate.

[Seven]

RIGHT ON BRUCE!! After all, the club is seeking ways to increase attendance at away events. In fact, if I had not skipped Summit, I would have won the SSB year end points trophy. That's where the incentive should be: increased points for away events to encourage more participants.
Heck, a real hot shoe could win the 4 NHIS events in 2007 and attend only 2 of the away events and trophy for the year. Not much incentive to travel 9 hours to Mosport or 10 hours to Summit, if the goal is reached by placing well in only 6 events.

As a popular afternoon sports-radio personality likes to say ... "you're making my point". Even though you were contending for a class championship the lure of a big end-of-year trophy was not sufficient to get you to go to Summit (whatever your reason for not going happened to be). Point is that sh*t happens.

Numbers w/o interpretation are not very helpful. Here's my take, there were only 8 people that attended all events last year (or 13 who made it to at least 7). Mossaidis asked the relevant question, how many of those 13 would have missed an away event if the scoring was the best 6 of 8? Then compare that number to how many more events would have been attended by the 24 people who attended 4 or 5 events?

One more stat (for now) 13 of the 17 classes were won by people who had gone to more events than everyone else in their class. Not surprising, I know, but it lends more credence to the obvious conclusion that having a "best of" methodology would tighten the class races and would presumably prompt greater participation.

I like Will's suggestion re. the bonus for multiple away events. One important consideration here that we can't loose sight of is no matter what is done regarding points, if people aren't interested in the event they aren't gonna go. Of the 21 people who missed btw 1-3 events, 18 didn't go to Summit, and 11 missed at least 1 of the Mosport events (btw, I didn't adjust for the multiple car thing).

[rajito]

The goal is to boost attendance at away events while keeping the scoring system simple to understand and tabulate.

I think currently, the point calculations are done manually.

Doing a best of X or assigning different points based on the track will make the work that much harder. For each person, the scorekeeper would have to figure out the best combination of X events that yields the highest results. i.e., would a 1st place finish at NHIS produce more points than a 5th place finish at Mosport, etc. etc.

If this becomes complicated (Nascar analogy), the scorekeeper and timing people will be rather unhappy, and I kinda like them. This might require us to try to automate the season points calculation in some manner.

Raj

[Seven]

The goal is to boost attendance at away events while keeping the scoring system simple to understand and tabulate.

I think currently, the point calculations are done manually.

Doing a best of X or assigning different points based on the track will make the work that much harder. For each person, the scorekeeper would have to figure out the best combination of X events that yields the highest results. i.e., would a 1st place finish at NHIS produce more points than a 5th place finish at Mosport, etc. etc.

If this becomes complicated (Nascar analogy), the scorekeeper and timing people will be rather unhappy, and I kinda like them. This might require us to try to automate the season points calculation in some manner.

Raj

You can't see it...but...my hand is raised.

[Dave_G]

Let me put in my $0.02 as a COM newbie. 2006 was my first year with COM, and I ran in only two events (Mosport and Tremblant). I'm entirely hooked, and next season I'm hoping to make four events. In my case, the limiting factor for my participation is not points, or competitiveness in my class, it's simply money. I just don't have it in my budget for more weekends. (I know, I got sucked into the wrong hobby if money is a concern. )

You can tinker with the points all you want, but I'm still going to attend at most four (maybe fewer) events next season. I'll probably do a Saturday-only at NHIS. At my stage of driver development, I'm not in the running to win anything anyway, and my biggest motivation comes from trying to improve my driving enough to see it show up on the timer.

I can see how a best-of-X point system could work for those at the top of the ladder, but its impact will be small down here at the bottom, if I'm anything close to typical.

[zip4zat]

I think mr Dave is onto something..

How many of the attendees are attracted to [more] events on the basis of a season chanpionship vs the learning, comradere, and event ammenities. I would go so far as to assume most of us reading here are in some way interested in the season series. To attract noobs, maybe trackday ammenities are more of a lure rather than season points.


Regarding the best of x scenarios, if roughly >90% of attendees are already attending 6 or less events, then dont we already, for the most part, have a best of x thing going anyways? I'll admit i havent checked to see how many season winners attended more than 6.

One way around this, 4 of us in STGT agreed at the beginning of the year that we would all run the same events in this class to make the season that much more competative.

[Seven]

Regarding the best of x scenarios, if roughly >90% of attendees are already attending 6 or less events, then dont we already, for the most part, have a best of x thing going anyways? I'll admit i havent checked to see how many season winners attended more than 6.

As it turns-out if the best 6 of 8 were employed in 2006 NONE of the class ranking at the top would have changed. It does, however, compress the spread thus narrowing the races.

[Mick]

As it turns-out if the best 6 of 8 were employed in 2006 NONE of the class ranking at the top would have changed. It does, however, compress the spread thus narrowing the races.

That calculation doesn't mean much though. It doesn't take into account what affect the change would have on attendance.

[chaos4NH]

Actually, Jeff, I didn't realize the championship had been within any stretch until after NHIS#3. I also feel that had I gone to Summit, garnered the 9 points for 2d place (only 2 in the class!!), my winning the year end would have not been based upon performance, simply attending more of the poorly populated away events. I am not sure many of us would want that to be the deciding factor. What think you all?
I know I had an enjoyable rookie year and look forward to improving and enjoying which ever events I make in 2007.

[Seven]

As it turns-out if the best 6 of 8 were employed in 2006 NONE of the class ranking at the top would have changed. It does, however, compress the spread thus narrowing the races.

That calculation doesn't mean much though. It doesn't take into account what affect the change would have on attendance.

Agreed 100%. Just wanted to add that little bit of info in case anyone was interested.

[WillM]

Personally, I think it is fine that an away event 'award' system would only be motivation for a small group of members. As long as the rest of the group is not affected negatively, what is the problem?

Part of what makes COM such a great club is the diversity of our members. Some are interested in the competition aspects, some are more focused on learning to drive, others are most interested in instructing or helping out. I love the fact that COM is a barrel full of opportunities, and members are allowed to pick and choose what they like, and leave the rest for someone else to appreciate. This is the reason why COM should never be a marqee club, why we should continue to visit a variety of tracks, and why we should endevour to broaden our membership base!

That said, with 35% of voters indicating that they would attend more events, it seems that it would be in the club's best interest to adopt a "multi-track" or away-event "bonus" system.

- Will

[Seven]

Well said Will. However, just a point of clarification ... the poll was answering whether a Best of N methodology might cause you to alter your participation level. Therefore, the results would suggest the club would benefit from the adoption of a Best of N method. While an intriguing option, the pole does not speak to the multi-track or away-event bonus system.

[boltonite]

the limiting factor for my participation is not points, or competitiveness in my class, it's simply money.

Yes, the issue is financial. Unless the club improves attendance at away events, one or two things are likely to occur: (A) away events go away, (B) participation gets more expensive for everyone.

FF

[Dave_G]

Unless the club improves attendance at away events, one or two things are likely to occur: (A) away events go away, (B) participation gets more expensive for everyone.

Remember that not all club members are from the Boston area, so "away" is a relative term. However, I guess it makes sense if you consider where the majority of our members live.

More importantly, there are other kinds of incentives besides points to get people to away events. As I've mentioned in the past, my very first event with COM was Mosport last summer. I had already registered for NHIS as my first event, but I specifically changed my registration from NHIS to Mosport based on incentives from the club. Those incentives were a) a promise of more track time; and b) a promise of instructors being available on Day 2 for any students who were not signed off to solo on Day 1. (As it happened, all students were signed off, so that never came up.) Also, c) the chance to race on a world-class course steeped in history.

It's only an anecdote based on one person, so we probably shouldn't generalize too greatly, but my point is that people do respond to incentives of all kinds. Maybe we can't make "away" events cheaper, but some people (evidently not enough) do respond to the notion of "greater bang for your driving buck," even after you factor in the travel time and expense.