Championship - How to score?

[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?

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.

I believe I know what your point was Sam (to take issue with the "perfect attendance" slur) and setting that aside, Gordon's main point was that the board wants to (A) promote competition in our TT series and (B) discern what the majority of members want. The member survey responses (now 206! of them) paint a clear picture, which carries a lot of weight, at least with me.

To answer your question (about how the Best-of-N affects competition), in a few classes there will likely be a competitor who is 99% guaranteed to attend every event, making it extremely unlikely that anyone else who cannot attend all events will win the class -- this is believed by me (and others) to have a "chilling" affect on enthusiasm for the entire TT series and it does not help to promote participation ESPECIALLY later in the season after a missed event or DNF takes you out of contention, as it does under the current points system.

For good-to-mediocre drivers in mediocre cars who attend all events, a Best-of-N system will not help you. For good drivers in good cars, a Best-of-N will not hurt you. For good-to-mediocre drivers in good cars who cannot attend every event, a Best-of-N system will give you a shot at the championship against the "perfect attendance" guy, but you will be handicapped for missed events so you can only win by out-performing your competition. We cannot please everyone, nor should we, but we can try to promote competition and participation so we can continue to have a healthy series of events at more tracks, rather than fewer events at fewer tracks, as we've seen happen in the past...
FF

[breakaway500]

So, following that ...logic..a mediocre driver in a great car should be able to win their class championship after what,4 events? I do understand where you are going with all this...so I guess I'll butt out, and let those who would be in favor of its inception tell us how imperative this will be to winning their class championship.
Hey,I graduated high school after only attending 100 days my senior year...and most of those I left early,or came in late.. Priorities,priorities...

[rousespointer]

I support the current method of scoring becuase I think it promotes the best strategy to make the club successful, and that strategy is to promote an increased attendance at all events, but especially "away" events. If the club is not successful, then championships and scoring will be a moot point. I don't think winning championships is the ultimate reason why we compete; we like the experience, the challenge, the camaraderie, etc. But having a championship in place does drive interest, and that means greater participation. That is the case for myself, and probably many others. All scoring methods have their own innate advantages, but our club has the one that works the best to achieve our club's overall goals of increased attendance and financial stability. Just my opinion.

[naschmitz]

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.

If this is the case, debating this rule is kind of a moot point in that wouldn't change the actual results whatsoever and there is lots of room for improvement to increase participation.

I wonder if changing the rules to drop two races might encourage someone to enter at least the minimum number of events, especially if the class winners right now are only scoring points in 3, 4 and 5 events in each class.

It really sounds more like a perception thing to me with no real impact on the reality of the outcome.

[imgon]

I can't speak for others but suspect that most of the people (like me) who don't attend all the events do so due to lack of funding and/or time off from work. I would love to go to every event. The first couple of years I was involved I was able to attend most events, typically just missing the Canadian tracks. Both years I came in third in class just because I finished 5-6 TT's, usually close to last. Back then I had a good job with boatloads of time off. Last year I only made it to two of the NH events and only went for the first day. Now I have a job that I just started and will have to build up time off. I hope that this year I will make it to at least 5 events. I feel the points system is fair the way it is. As others have said if you are chasing the championship you are dedicated to making it to the most events possible and it seems a bit unfair that someone who might be a local hotshoe at NH could walk away with a championship without attending any races other than NH. Having said that, racing is a fickle sport with so many ways to ruin your "perfect" season so in some regards I can understand dropping a low score or two, but I would think for it to be truly fair those who didn't run the entire season would also have to drop their low score. If that is the case we are essentially back to the way we score as of now. My vote would be keep the scoring the way it is. I believe most of us go to these events to just have fun with our cars and if you win a championship that is icing on the cake. And some bragging rights! The people who drive just to win are probably involved in wheel to wheel racing and just come to our events for extra seat time. Just my 2 cents.

[TroyV]

I just completed the second survey. When I look at the scoring, there really is no difference in my mind how it would have played out in my class regardless. The guys that came in ahead of me busted their asses, and were faster. No question about that.

I did all but one event last year, due to injury, or I would have done them all..........but I don't think if I had done the event, and came in 3rd or 4th as I typically do, would have changed the outcome if it had been scored these other optional ways......and even if it did, it would not have changed my desire to go or not go.

I didn't really start giving a crap about the TT stuff until the last few years. This is one of the only clubs I go to the track with, and the only one I do Time Trials with. It took me a few seasons to get comfortable with the idea of doing the TT's regularly. I think it came down to the intimidation factor that we all have talked about in recent months when looking at ways to get new people to join/participate. These people see the risk as much larger than the rest of us may.

In the end, I don't think changing the scoring will get more/new people to participate in the TT, it is the membership that will really get it to happen. I think I have at least a half dozen people that have come into the club and participated in TT's in the last year. As long as we keep pushing the club, it probably doesn't matter how the points are scored.

[paultg]

As a newer person/student who can't make each event for various reasons mentioned by others above, I don't see myself as having a chance to compete for a championship either way, I've got plenty to learn and lots of car prep to do to get to that level, let alone the financial and time off aspects. I'd consider myself a "student" even if signed off to solo or licensed. I really don't see the competition or a championship scoring modification as changing much for someone like me.

So, your trying to get more attendance on Day Two. I think to get students to do Day 2 (I know for me at least) it is really more a confidence thing which you are working on well with the mentor program and great instruction, etc. I think offering instruction for both days might help with attendance (I think many students may be nervous about being on track alone).
Also, I hear other clubs have vehicle insurance policies available (not sure if this is true)? I think many folks are under the impression non-timed events are covered by their auto-policy and avoid the TT out of fear of no coverage in the event of an accident.

But maybe it isn't students you are looking for for these Day 2 TTs. How many non-students do you have typically and how many non-students are signed off to solo or licensed? Maybe some of them can chime in on what keeps them from doing the TT?

Paul G.

[naschmitz]

Thanks for letting us see the results of the first survey!

[eastcoastbumps]

It sounds like I'm the odd one out on this. I skip NHMS events so I can go to away events. I may do a few more NHMS events if I have a chance at the championship. I can't make every event, so dropping the two lowest scoring events would be a benefit and incentive to go to those NHMS events as well.

[ptravis27]

I just completed the second survey and my answers about what events I would attend reflected the fact that I do not have my license yet (still a student). If I did get my license I would attend more away venues and not just NHMS, but until I do I will stay close to home.

[chaos4NH]

It sounds like I'm the odd one out on this. I skip NHMS events so I can go to away events. I may do a few more NHMS events if I have a chance at the championship. I can't make every event, so dropping the two lowest scoring events would be a benefit and incentive to go to those NHMS events as well.

We pretty much fill up the NHMS events Pete. Glad to see some others chiming in here. I agree, that it is more likely the cost, and time off from work, that drives attendance rather than the quest for the championship. My first 2 years back I was usually the slowest or close to the slowest car in the entire TT, but, hell I had fun! For a couple of years we had a great rivalry going in ST2, but now we need more competitors in that class, SSA, SSB, etc.
I was under the impression that our foremost drive was to get more of the guys/gals who only attend one event (60% of our entrants only attend one event in a given year!) to return a 2nd or 3rd time. Changing the current TT championship format is NOT going to achieve that goal.

[horizenjob]

Do these %60 of drivers that attend once, only ever come once or do they come once every year? It would be very different the things you do to change that around...

[chaos4NH]

Do these %60 of drivers that attend once, only ever come once or do they come once every year? It would be very different the things you do to change that around...

Good question Marcus. I only know what I stated. Perhaps we can find the answer. Freddy? Mark?

[6PAK72]

Couple perspectives:

I appreciated getting points for attendance. I had no intent to run for points - just wanted to get on the track.

However, by mid-season when I saw that the points were accumulating and that I could be reasonably competitive first season out, I was actually incentivized. I'm not deluding myself, I would not have run with Jeff or Mark, but I was not sucking wind either. And the "away" points sure helped.

I was lucky that last year I had the financial ability to book 2 events with other clubs to get more seat time, and so I made that commitment so I could be more competitive in COM. So, the "carrot" of being competitive actually caused me to spend more than I had planned, work harder than I might have otherwise, and become more focused on what it takes to prep a car well and drive well. That and a lot of positive feedback from everyone in COM.

As an alternative, you could try scoring on a relative scale - 8 events x N point per event, divided by the number of events attended = relative point average.

Say you attended 6, but got wins at 3 vs. another driver who attended 8 and placed 3rd. There would be an averaging parity between the two.

I'm not dis-satisfied with the current plan, just suggesting an approach I've seen work in other things.

[boltonite]

Attendance points STILL matter under a Best-of-N approach. There is a perception of this becoming a "points game" instead of awarding competitors their total points, but a Best-of-N approach but does not necessarily make it a points game that unfairly favors a hot-shoe slacker.

Here are two scenarios, one in which the Best-of-N does come into play and a second case where it does not. In both cases, the class winner goes to the guy who actually never beats the fastest guy in class, however is fast and good (and present) enough to garner enough points to prevail. I have taken some liberties by assuming 2 attendance points for NH, 4 for all other tracks, and that ties are broken by # events attended and then by # of wins. I think it demonstrates that while it helps to win, it does not kill you to come in 2nd or 3rd and it still pays to attend more events.



Please come up with a rebutting scenario. I really would like to see cases in which someone who "should" win by virtue of their performance and attendance fails to do so. No one wants to unfairly penalize our most active participants.