Championship - How to score?

[John F]

The last poll on this topic showed only 38 replies, which doesn't even cover the Miata contingency. Maybe the results were skewed because it was based more on attendance increase rather than scoring. I can't make every event until I retire, so changing the scoring rules will not change the number of events I will attend. I think that the poll should be re-done with the question rewritten to focus more on people who are actually in the points run.

[brucesallen]

In some karting championships Amos and I have run, there were races every weekend all summer: ~20 races. To run all of them would have required not just commitment (no other life) but luck. The drop-2 system in that series worked perfectly.

To me the following points argue for a drop approach:
- Rain variation during a time trial is a lottery.
- Most of us have jobs and families (weddings, graduations, funerals).
- This is an amateur thing.

I'd be in favor of a drop-1 system for COM. Dropping 2 is too many for the relatively small number of events we have.

I doubt that the effect on attendance will be measurable either way. But this would make things slightly fairer, and people prefer a club that seems interested in fairness.

Can we do this retroactively? I would have beaten your ass for the FP champ.

[nateh]

If there were a boobie-prize for the ugliest championship, I'd be a contender two years in a row now.

[chaos4NH]

I am not sure everyone understands the best of X scoring. If competitor A ran 9 events and dropped his/her slowest, and competitor B ran only 7 events (or less) there would be little effect on the year end outcome in the MAJORITY of cases Look at the example Fred posted based on the 2007 ST2 championship to see what I mean.
As for some getting wet runs, cie la vie. No bitching from me about Mont-Tremblant. Same in golf, early groups sometimes encounter heavy dew and later groups not.

[Grippy]

It would be interesting to see if best 6 or 7 events would have changed the outcome in any class this year.

[Mick]

I would hope so, that's the point.

[naschmitz]

Only five of the 17 class winners attended all the events, so most class winners are dropping a 0. Looks like FP is the only class that changes with a Drop-1 rule.

[naschmitz]

In fact, with a Drop-1 rule only 10 people ran all 8 events and would drop a non-zero value:

Fred Ferguson
Gordon Andrade
Will Martins
Jeff Wasilko
Nate Hine
Sam Webster
Mark Swinehart
Bill McMahon
Thomas McPherson
Barry Gammon

[Mick]

What these numbers don't show is how many people would have run more events under best of N.

Bruce only ran 6, if he knew were scoring on best of 7 maybe he would have made one more event.

[brucesallen]

.

[brucesallen]

What these numbers don't show is how many people would have run more events under best of N.

Bruce only ran 6, if he knew were scoring on best of 7 maybe he would have made one more event.

I attended 7. I planned to attend all events. At one NHMS event I was crashed out before the time trial. I did not go to the Glen because of a disabled transmission at SCCA race a couple of days prior.

[Grippy]

But does the picture change if you use best 6 of 8 scores?

[DanB]

Seems to me, counting ALL the events gives greater resolution (more data points used) and encourages participation more. In a closely-fought class, it should be allowed to go to the last event.

I like the idea that *every* event counts, and I don't see any real benefit to going to a "best of N" system. At best it seems like an unnecessary complication and potential source of confusion.

[Grippy]

Even going to best 6 of 8 would not have changed the outcome of any class except FP. But that does not account for any possible increased attendence if people thought they had a better shot at a championship.

I'm not really sure that it matters but there seems to be some support for a best of N system. Personally I plan to make every event but things do come up and get in the way. I think we should try it and see if participation increases.

[DanB]

Any potential increase in participation due to "best X of N" is purely theoretical, and if it were implemented there is no real way to determine whether or not it worked (too many other factors involved).

There are also theoretical arguments to be made that "best X of N" will DEcrease participation.
i.e., I can skip (N-X) events and not risk being out of the championship hunt because my worst X events are dropped anyway.

Another hypothetical:
In most classes, people realize that they simply won't be in the hunt for the championship unless fastboy RacerX in their class misses a few events, and they attend enough more events to make up for being hammered when he does show. But best X of N allows RacerX to skip more events, and DEcreases the potential for others to win the championship, thereby DEcreasing their propensity to attend as many events as possible! So both the class fast driver and would-be pretenders have reduced motivation.

At first glance, and then after reflecting on it a bit, I just don't see why "best X of N" should do anything to increase attendance. Still seems the opposite would be more likely, to me anyway...