Championship - How to score?

[dinoracer]

I've been following but not posting on this one, as I couldn't make a good argument for either way being better. That said, I'm with Dan. I don't see that it will increase attendance, and may actually hurt it - but I doubt that the "hard core" guys/gals that make all the events will not make the last one just because they have a championship in the bag. They'll come anyway because they want to.

It won't make a difference for me, as I can't afford $$ or time wise to go to all the events anyway. I 'll make all I can and hope for the best at the end of the year.

[eastcoastbumps]

I think everyone tries to get to as many events as possible through out the year, regardless of a championship. How we score it will have little or no effect on attendance. I hope everyone attending is there for more than just a trophy at the end of the day, and a bigger one at the end of the year.

The class champion should be whoever is consistently the fastest driver. If a consistently slower driver wins a championship, then the scoring system is flawed. Best of N ensures that the best driver wins. The current system would work great if everyone attended every event. But we cannot all be as fortunate as those few who can.

[DanB]

The class champion should be whoever is consistently the fastest driver. If a consistently slower driver wins a championship, then the scoring system is flawed. Best of N ensures that the best driver wins. The current system would work great if everyone attended every event. But we cannot all be as fortunate as those few who can.

Best of N will not ensure that the best driver wins. NO system will! I don't see why the "best driver" should be any less able to attend events as the 2nd or 3rd best driver. I don't see that "Best of N" improves the situation as far as better drivers becoming more likely to win championships.

Keeping the system as it is *will* tend to encourage the best drivers to attend as many events as possible.

The ability to drop events doesn't "help" the best drivers any more than it "helps" lesser drivers as far as points championships.

[cuda6666]

"Best of N" helps the fiscally challenged driver - assuming he/she is also the "best" driver.

[Dave_G]

I don't see that "Best of N" improves the situation as far as better drivers becoming more likely to win championships.

Here's an example of how it would:

Say Driver A and Driver B are equally fast drivers, with both of them usually finishing first or second, and accumulating roughly equal points in the events where they both attend. But Driver A has no other life, and attends every event during the season, while Driver B has weddings, family vacations, anniversaries, etc., and misses a couple of events. Driver A wins the season based on number of events rather than speed. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Now imagine a variation, where Driver B is consistently faster, and wins every event he enters, with Driver A finishing second. But because Driver A made every event and Driver B missed a couple, Driver A wins the season on points even though he was slower. Whether that's a problem or not is open to debate, but I'm pretty sure that this scenario is fairly common in COM.

[TroyV]

I'm sure I'm reiterating some of the stuff posted earlier in this thread but...

I think the finish between Jeff Wasilko and I is about as close as any other finish in the club this season. Best of N where N=1 is a 4 point differential, N=2 is also a 4 point differential, and even N=3 is still a 2 point differential, all in Jeff's favor. In my case, skipping NHMS3 where Jeff took 1st place, and 11 points, was just too many points to make up, especially where Jeff finished the season so strongly from there on out. In my class, the guy that got the win, earned it, and best of N would not have changed the result.

So, I can't really say either way if it is a benefit or not, but it sort of feels like best of N benefits faster drivers with busier schedules, and not second fastest or slower. I can see how one would be a little miffed if they had made the commitment all season to be at every event and scored relatively high, only to have a faster player with less of a commitment swoop in and take the trophy. The flip side of that is.....does this make the class trophy a perfect attendance award for the second fastest?

Personally, I don't care either way. Results are results. Everyone knows where they really stand against the guys in their class based on the individual results posted.

[dinoracer]

Everyone knows where they really stand against the guys in their class based on the individual results posted.

Well said Troy. We all "race" against the cars in our class (in the time trial); or the cars similar to ours in performance (all the rest of the time). Getting some hardware is nice, but I'm having fun either way

I say leave the scoring the way it is.

[eastcoastbumps]

The class champion should be whoever is consistently the fastest driver. If a consistently slower driver wins a championship, then the scoring system is flawed. Best of N ensures that the best driver wins. The current system would work great if everyone attended every event. But we cannot all be as fortunate as those few who can.

Best of N will not ensure that the best driver wins. NO system will! I don't see why the "best driver" should be any less able to attend events as the 2nd or 3rd best driver. I don't see that "Best of N" improves the situation as far as better drivers becoming more likely to win championships.

Keeping the system as it is *will* tend to encourage the best drivers to attend as many events as possible.

The ability to drop events doesn't "help" the best drivers any more than it "helps" lesser drivers as far as points championships.

First and foremost, Nate, I'm not trying to take anything away from you or your championship this season. I do know that it takes a lot of time and work to go to all the events. Its just that the competition in FP this year makes a perfect example of why I support a Best of N.

Bruce is consistently faster than Nate, but Bruce didn't compete in two time trials. Who deserves the championship in that class? I'd say the faster driver, Bruce. He won his class at every event he attended (6 of 8 ). Nate was last place in class at 4 out of 8 events and didn't have a single 1st place finish. However, since Nate did every event, he gets the championship.

As far as Best of N's effect on attendance, I'd say it wouldn't change much. It would be a motivator for me to do another event or two since I only get to a few events a year and it would help me out in a chase for a championship. But it won't actually get me to another event, because I do as many as I can regardless of the championship.

[brucesallen]

Bruce is consistently faster than Nate, but Bruce didn't compete in two time trials. Who deserves the championship in that class? I'd say the faster driver, Bruce. He won his class at every event he attended (6 of 8 ). Nate was last place in class at 4 out of 8 events and didn't have a single 1st place finish. However, since Nate did every event, he gets the championship.

I disagree. To finish First, First you must avoid getting T-Boned by an instructor.

[nateh]

Lengthy arguments above demonstrate that you can't convincingly state whether best of N would directly motivate people to attend more or fewer events.

Championships reward, among other things:
- skill
- preparation
- persistence
- financial commitment
- luck

When we speak of fairness, we usually mean that luck is downplayed as much as possible. Other than that, the fairest system usually is the one that favors the individual making the judgment. (Primate studies bear this out, and any parent can understand it as well.) Where I stand depends on where I sit.

Using extremes to make my point: the current system rewards zealots (like myself, on the evidence) over hobbyists. Most of our members are hobbyists, and they would be favored by a best of N. So to be perceived more widely as fair, a best of N would be better.

But only slightly so, and any benefits would be indirect and hard to measure.

[Grippy]

I am sure Fred could track how many people attended 1, 2, 3 etc. events for the last few years both as a percentage of all participants and actual numbers to see if "Best of N" increases participation.

If the percentage of members that attended 3 events goes down and 4, 5, or 6 events goes up then we made a positive change (for example).
I highly doubt the few members that do attend all the events will go down. In some respects, our system now is a perfect attendence award.

[naschmitz]

In some respects, our system now is a perfect attendence award.

Not really. Only FIVE of the 17 class winners attended all 8 events. So even without a Best of N rule, you have that in effect already in two thirds of the classes.

[DanDarcy]

I have won championships while only doing 4 events, this year I did 4 events and did not win the championship. The winner did 7 of the 8 events and deserves to win with his consistent attendance and good performance. I think the championship should go to the driver with the highest points even if they didn't win an event. Last year I voted against the best of N proposal but if some one could show me that it would increase attendance and benefit the club, I would change my vote. I only want to do what is best for the club.

[DanB]

I am sure Fred could track how many people attended 1, 2, 3 etc. events for the last few years both as a percentage of all participants and actual numbers to see if "Best of N" increases participation.

If the percentage of members that attended 3 events goes down and 4, 5, or 6 events goes up then we made a positive change (for example).
I highly doubt the few members that do attend all the events will go down. In some respects, our system now is a perfect attendence award.

Whichever way the attendance moved, it would not be valid to conclude that it was as a result of the rule change. There are too many other factors that affect whether or not people will attend, and there are external phenomena that will tremendously affect attendance from year to year to a much greater degree.

In any case, if you *could* isolate the effect of the proposed change on attendance, the proper metric would be total attendance, right?

I think it's better to stick with what we have. It seems to me that it encourages attendance rather than discouraging it, if anything.

[eastcoastbumps]

I still can't see how anyone would make a decision to not attend an event based entirely on their attendance having no impact on their chance at a class championship. I see Best of N giving a few people who can't make every event a better chance at contending (and participating/attending more) for a championship.

Best of N would not discourage anyone from attending, unless they have some serious self-esteem or ego issues. "I'm not going to go to a track day with all my buddies 'cuz I already have the championship in the bag." If I heard someone say something like that then a tar and feathering at the banquet would be in order. I would hope no one within COM has that kind of attitude.