Championship - How to score?

[WillM]

The recent COM survey got me thinking about how we calculate championship points. There has been some talk of moving from the current strategy to a "best X of Y" strategy.

Current Strategy
Total points for all events are tallied. Tie-breakers are determined by the # of first-class finishes, then # of second-class finishes, etc.

Best X of Y Strategy
The slowest event(s) is/are dropped. For example, the best 7 of 9 events. Tie-breakers are determined the same way as the current strategy.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? What are the pros and cons of each?

How would a change of scoring strategy change your attendance or enjoyment of our time trial series?

[breakaway500]

Dropping scores would not be good for someone who attends every event.Granted,not many do all of them..but if you were looking to win your class,going to more events would surely help the cause along,seeing as scores are not averaged. You wouldn't need the fastest car in class, but because you attend every event possible,score more points than someone who has a killer car,but only attends two or three events. I personally feel this is how it should be for an overall championship for a class. I have never liked dropping scores from the top or bottom. Actual performance on track should be the only way to win a championship,not getting beat by a numbers game. I would not change anything,in regard to points for the overall class championship. Just my opinion.

[Neptune441]

Dropping scores would not be good for someone who attends every event.Granted,not many do all of them..but if you were looking to win your class,going to more events would surely help the cause along,seeing as scores are not averaged. You wouldn't need the fastest car in class, but because you attend every event possible,score more points than someone who has a killer car,but only attends two or three events. I personally feel this is how it should be for an overall championship for a class. I have never liked dropping scores from the top or bottom. Actual performance on track should be the only way to win a championship,not getting beat by a numbers game. I would not change anything,in regard to points for the overall class championship. Just my opinion.

I agree with breakaeway whole heartedly on this, Those who show up, take time out of their lives " That they have planned" to compete should be the standard.

[brucesallen]

I also agree. No sense in giving a disincentive to a racer attending the last event or two.

[chaos4NH]

I agree also! I too, think this could lead people dropping events that they might attend for the points. Might impact away events as people concentrate on NHMS, knowing that two away events could be dropped and save $$$$$$$$.

[offcamber09]

Sorry to pile on Will- but this doesn't seem like a good way to build up away event attendance. This is coming from someone who would benefit from this idea- since I've had a tough time getting to as many events as I used to. Keep those creative juices flowing.

[Grippy]

What the BOD is trying to gauge is if changing the points system would encourage more members to compete in the series. A large percentage of members only attend 1 or 2 events per year for whatever personal reasons. If they felt they could be competetive by attending a few more events, but not all events, would that encourage more members to attend a few more than 1-2 events. The way it is scored now it is a perfect attendance award, if you miss 1 or 2 events you will most likely not win your class.

[chaos4NH]

What the BOD is trying to gauge is if changing the points system would encourage more members to compete in the series. A large percentage of members only attend 1 or 2 events per year for whatever personal reasons. If they felt they could be competetive by attending a few more events, but not all events, would that encourage more members to attend a few more than 1-2 events. The way it is scored now it is a perfect attendance award, if you miss 1 or 2 events you will most likely not win your class.

Sorry Gordon, but I beg to differ with you. 9 of the class winners in 2009 missed AT LEAST 2 events. here is the break down:
FP made 3 of 7 events, SSGT made 3 of 7, SSA made 3 of 7, SPB made 4 of 7. Then the following made 5 of 7: PA, SPA, STGT, and SSU.
Further, I could have missed WGI and any one of NHMS eventa and still won the year end. I also could have missed MT and NHMS 2, 3, or 4 and still won.

Perfect attendance is not the issue here. The issue is allowing participants to pick and choose because they know they can skip those expensive away events and still win the championship.

[breakaway500]

I don't see how it could be done fairly. Everyone currrently knows that you will receive points for each event attended,as long as you run a time trial. By "helping" those who do not attend,you are doing a disservice to those who understand that winning a championship takes determination and expenditure to attend every possible event. If you strive for a class championship,and cannot attend more events,you had better win the ones you attend,and hope your competitors don't do well. Or, be happy winning your class on the events you do attend,and leave the class championship challenge for those who will make the sacrifices it takes to win.

It is NOT a perfect attendance award. Maybe if you attend 3 events with you Super 8,and someone else attends 7 with their Super 6.5,your Super 8 may get beat.But isn't that what a year long championship is all about? I don't know of one sanctioning race body that awards people for showing up for LESS events to win the class for the year.Not one.
I am against it,and would probably attend LESS events if I thought it didn't matter if I skipped a few and it would not affect my end of the year tally for the class championship. Maybe I wouldn't go to NJMP if I knew I had my class championship won,and would go to WG with NEQ instead..etc etc...

[cuda6666]

I vaguely remember that for a few years in the 90s, we used the system of allowing competitors to drop an event or two. I don't remember any major dissention about it, or drop in participation at away events, but that was when people like me could afford to run all the events. Maybe it would work now, maybe not. Anyway, the first thing that needs to get cleared up is whether this is a philosophical issue, or a financial one. If it's the latter, we could always further increase the points awarded at away events to offset the temptation to skip them.

[boltonite]

I feel compelled to respond to a few "points" that have been made in this thread:

1. Sam, by your own reckoning, a few 2009 class championships were won by drivers who attended only 3 or 4 events, explain to me how a Best-of-N makes this worse? It seems to me those class championships would be totally unaffected or is there something I am missing?

2. breakaway, if you cannot name one series or sanctioning body that uses a Best-of-N system then try harder, I can name several: SCCA (both regionally and nationally), BMWCCA, FCA, PCA, and NASA. Quoting from the NASA 2009 Time Trial rule book:

"NASA TT competitors will be allowed to drop their two lowest event scores to arrive at their total score for year-end awards."

3. In recent years, anyone who participates in a COM Time Trial receives "attendance points" regardless of finishing position, with double points for away events (to address Frank's post). These "attendance points" are counted for ALL events under either system. Under a Best-of-N, if you don't go to away events and your slower competitor does, that competitor gains a minimum 16 points before adding their TT results points (and since you opted to blow it off, they are likely to receive even more results points). If you do the math you will quickly see it is exceedingly difficult to "drop" all away events and still win if there is any sort of competition to begin with (admittedly, not all classes have much competition). On the other hand, if you DNF or are unable to attend an event, it does not mean you are basically screwed under a Best-of-N point system, but it does put you at a disadvantage because of those attendance points.

I really hope this debate sheds MORE light on the issue and leads the club and the board to reach a consensus that serves the entire membership.

[breakaway500]

Hmm. OK,I admit to not knowing all the scoring going on out there... However,I feel attendance should be awarded,period. Why not? If you care enough to attend every possible COM event,then this is not an issue. However,if you don't, then juggling numbers is your friend. I have never liked scoring games. Awarding points by how one places at EACH event is exact. Awarding a championship by how you "fit" the scoring game is nothing but a compromise. I am old school, the fastest car wins,period,and the one with the most "finishing" points wins a championship. That is what racing really is about;finishing every race the best you possibly can. Fiddling with the scoring results is only a feel good way to make some people who would not win...win. Call me antiquated,but he (or she) who accumulates the most FINISHING points should be crowned the winner of the year end championship for that class.Dropping highest,lowest..whatever..is nothing more than a way to win without attending. Does anyone think handicapping results will actually help attendance?

[chaos4NH]

I feel compelled to respond to a few "points" that have been made in this thread:

1. Sam, by your own reckoning, a few 2009 class championships were won by drivers who attended only 3 or 4 events, explain to me how a Best-of-N makes this worse? It seems to me those class championships would be totally unaffected or is there something I am missing?

Fred, my point was to take exception to the statement that the championships were attendance awards. Sure, some classes have been less then hotly contested in the past few years, but how would that have changed if there was a best of N scoring method? Deducting points from the scores of frequent attendees seems contrary to the goal of encouraging participation. I doubt we would be gaining attendance with best of N. I still feel that best of N gives the opportunity to Skip events, especially $$$$$ away events.

[betelgeuse]

Hmm. OK,I admit to not knowing all the scoring going on out there... However,I feel attendance should be awarded,period. Why not? If you care enough to attend every possible COM event,then this is not an issue. However,if you don't, then juggling numbers is your friend. I have never liked scoring games. Awarding points by how one places at EACH event is exact. Awarding a championship by how you "fit" the scoring game is nothing but a compromise. I am old school, the fastest car wins,period,and the one with the most "finishing" points wins a championship. That is what racing really is about;finishing every race the best you possibly can. Fiddling with the scoring results is only a feel good way to make some people who would not win...win. Call me antiquated,but he (or she) who accumulates the most FINISHING points should be crowned the winner of the year end championship for that class.Dropping highest,lowest..whatever..is nothing more than a way to win without attending. Does anyone think handicapping results will actually help attendance?

+ 1
Greg

[Grippy]

Ok, we have heard from a bunch of you who attend most or all of our events.
I would like to hear from a few who only participated in 1 or a few events last year.
This is a very good discussion, lets keep it moving forward, your BOD is watching and listening.