Championship Scoring System - 2010 in General Discussion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Championship Scoring System - 2010

Author

Comment

Dyrr Ardash

Championship Scoring System - 2010

Lead

[-]

Posts: 214

(09/08/09 15:03:02)

Moderator

Tags : None

Remove this ad

Hi All,

I have recently had an email proposing a change to the championship scoring system. Although the commitee is pretty happy with the current scoring system and little was mentioned about it in the survey last year, we would be interested to hear competitor opinion.

Please express your views, positive or negative and also any particular suggestions. We would be interested to hear them.

Feel free to drop me an email or post comments / suggestions on this thread.

Regards

Dyrr

LCM

[-]

Posts: 33

(09/08/09 23:20:54)

Accepting that no scoring system is perfect, I think that the current MSC approach is pretty good. It keeps scores close until season end and incentivises competitors to try to do a good time even if they can't get a class win.

My main reservation is the way that small classes are scored. Deducting 0.5 points from the winner of a 2 car class and 1.0 points in a one car class seems to penalise those who actually turn up and compete. If we want encourage competitors, this approach could be considered dysfunctional.

I've sometimes wondered why time deductions are based on the 2nd car's time rather than the winner's, but I guess this helps to contribute to the closeness of scores between contenders.

In an ideal world we would have a scoring system based purely on performance against class records. However, as we don't all compete at the same events under the same conditions and can drop scores it means that in the real world it would't work.

Good Luck!

sarahb

[-]

Posts: 35

(09/09/09 09:26:03)

I think we need to consider moving over to a system of scoring where a low number of cars in the class does not effect the chances of scoring maximum points.

The current system that relies on 3 entrants in a class is causing people NOT to enter events (if they know they are alone or one of only two entries) and it excludes a number of good drivers with quick cars fom actually 'competing' as they never see a class with 3 entries.

We knew that there would be no Elises at Loton on the 12th Sept so chose not to enter. Similarly if we were not meeting friends at Shelsley on the 19th we would have cancelled as there is only one other Elise entered.

Under the current system our season has effectively ended.

We are also competing this year in the Gurston Sprint Championship & Harewood Hillclimb Championship both of which use a satisfactory system of scoring based on your proximity to the class record.

The model I would follow is the NSCC scoring system with one alteration.

20 points if equal to the lap record.

00.07 under the record = 20.07 points

00.07 outside the record = 19.93 points

The change I would make would be to make the maximum points that can be awarded 20.50.

The current NSCC regs do not have a maximum score and this can cause problems. It would also cover any Croft type timing %$++ ups as the worst damage that could be done would be somebody getting a 20.50.

Also if an amazing car turns up the 20.50 cap would keep it in sight of the other competitors.

The Gurston & Harewood Championship tables look like a jumble of figures

If you adopt the 'twenty' as the base figure then people know that after 3 events if someone has a score of 59.65 they are doing very well and nudging records and someone showing 60.88 is doing really well and breaking records (it also retains a visual similarity to the current scoring system)

This system would also do away with the need for people to 'protest' some vehicles and must make the scorers job more simple.

I have enjoyed the current scoring system but to keep entries & interest it is perhaps time to look at alternatives.

I think since the survey was done last year a lot of peoples circumstances have changed, entries are down and some events have been cancelled. I suggest that a move over to a system that gives more people a chance and encourages more entries is worth considering.

Mick & Sarah

LCM

[-]

Posts: 34

(09/09/09 11:01:31)

Ay oop M & S (btw, have you ever thought of opening a shop?).................

I like a lot of what you suggest. But the problem I see for a championship that has as many rounds and venues as MSC is the combined effect of the weather and dropped scores which could mean having to do every round to make sure that you maximise your use of good weather days!

Let's take a simple example:

One Sunday, Norman (who also has the good sense and native style to drive a Radical) goes to Curborough and does a single lap event. As usual in Sunny Staffordshire the weather is fine and his best time is 31.99 secs (brisk but not really impressive) which earns him 18 (20 - 2) MSC points. I, on the other hand, have chosen to visit God's Own County and do a hillclimb at Harewood that day. Of course, up there it is blowing a gale and alternating between sleet and torrential rain. So, taking double brave pills I throw sense and caution to the wind and get to the top of the hill in 64.34 secs to claim FTD, beating Spedding, Blackmore et al in the process. This amazing feat earns me a miserable 10 (20 - 10) MSC points.

Now, you may say "OOOOH you big Jessie, it's always like that in Yorshire" but it don't seem fair to a soft southerner like me.

See you at Shelsley on 19th Pet! (Oh and you too Sarah).

Aaron Perrott

[-]

Posts: 66

(09/11/09 06:01:09)

All - As a non top of the championship contender and someone at the other end of the spectrum, I do also think the dropped points when your on your own are harsh particularly if you break the record. Personally if you break the record and win the class (even if it's a class of 1 or 2) I believe you should score 21 plus the additional record points. As for the points minus the handicap, not only is the above weather point valid but also the lesser competitors (such as myself!), would end up turning up events basically to score against the clock. I actually enjoy the odd event or two where there's some non MSC 3A's out, or 1 v.quick Mini and a.n.other car's out. This year at Harewood I had a great battle against an Anglia for 2nd in the class (of 4). The motivation was getting that very rare 2nd in class (for me) in a class with more than 2 out and with none of the big 3a hitters out. I had a great day, the Anglia and I swapped times in each run and I pipped him in the end by 0.3. I'm not saying I wouldn't push against a record but it's an extra motivation factor for a rare 2nd place. So if it was me I'd keep the 21, 20 then points after 2nd (this also gives people like me a chance to score points), and keep the reduced points if you don't break the record (so someone in a class of one doesn't win the championship merely by turning up), but if you break the record even in a class of 1 you get the 21 + the bonus. So in your case Sarah and Martin's you've always got a chance of scoring a max in a class of one if you beat the record.

quattroracing

[-]

Posts: 13

(09/13/09 02:07:16)

Hi All,

First point is that Dyrr mentioned a suggestion has been made. If it is felt this suggestion has merit should competitors not comment on that suggestion rather than everyone now commenting on what they would like to see.

I agree with Lindsay and Sarah that the reduced score if there is only one or two cars in the class is not idealy suited to all but it does to ensure the championship remains closely fought, for example (and playing devils advocate), if the reduced scoring were to be scrapped an unscrupulous person may choose an obscure and unsupported class with no competition and quietly rack up there 21 points along the way which if you turn the argument around could prove disadvantageous for the more well supported classes that really have to battle for their 21 points. This then comes down to breaking records I hear you say, but this too is subject to the law of diminishing returns for regular competitors who cannot afford to develop or have reached the end of development in their car, not to mention those who compete in a standard class where little or no improvement is possible apart from driving style.

I have been competing in the Championship since 1996 and have seen the scoring tweaked over that time to the point we are at today which has been adopted by other championships as most people beleive it to be one of the best and fairest systems in the sport and has again and again proved it can provide a tight championship both in terms of class and championship standings.

I am all in favour of tweaks that see the system bring competiton even closer together (although its tight enough in 1B already thank you very much) but remember that no matter what we do to the system, we will never have a completley fair system and a class will always be marginalised or disadvantaged by any changes made.

It would be interesting to hear from a single seater driver particualrly in the 2ltr and over 2 ltr classes as no single seater has won the championship since ive been competing......and considering I hate single seaters its a comment and a half

LCM

[-]

Posts: 35

(09/13/09 12:38:55)

quattroracing wrote:

First point is that Dyrr mentioned a suggestion has been made. If it is felt this suggestion has merit should competitors not comment on that suggestion rather than everyone now commenting on what they would like to see.

Absolutely!

But, if that were the case, wouldn't it have helped if we'd been told what the suggestion was?

It may be interesting to note that HSA also seems to be frothing on the same topic: http://www.hillclimbandsprint.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=820&whichpage=1.

So, we are not alone.

Now, this may be a touch metaphysical but I'm sure that the native erudition and common sense of MSC members will suffice - if the discrimination against small classes were to removed and as some fear there were to be a mass movement to small classes with "soft records then, market principles being what they are, they wouldn't be small classes with soft records for very long!

It is also worth remembering that the popularity of classes can be frustratingly transitory. Only a few years ago, 2B was huge and ultra competitiive (Ash Mason, Will Hall, Dave Uren, Tim Cross, Ken Evans, Matt Hillam, Steve Day, Simon Thornley, Terry Dutton, Jeremy Wilson, Gary Bunn + the rest of us slow hangers on), but where is it now?

A multi-venue championship is very different from those based on a single venue and presents unique challenges to its administrators. However, the question needs to be asked - "why does it exist?". If part of the answer is to encourage people to compete, then discrimination against those in small classes is incompatible with that objective.

If the MSC is to be a championship purely for the currently most popular classes, then it's future is fundamentally limited, which is I'm sure not what any of us wish.

Lindsay

The word "dog" never bit anybody.

sarahb

[-]

Posts: 36

(09/14/09 11:04:30)

"First point is that Dyrr mentioned a suggestion has been made. If it is felt this suggestion has merit should competitors not comment on that suggestion rather than everyone now commenting on what they would like to see."

Hi All

I originally emailed Dyrr with the suggestion that we 'look at' other systems of scoring and I added my suggested option as the second post.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I started the ball rolling on this one?

The current MSC scoring system is great if you have a well supported class (as is the Curborough Championship 20/19/18 etc system).

However both systems do little to encourage people to enter events when they have only one or two cars in the class and they have no possibility of scoring a meaningful number of points.

My suggested system I believe would encourage more people to enter events and allow more people to be 'really' involved in the chase for the championship.

Cheers. Mick

LCM

[-]

Posts: 36

(09/14/09 11:50:55)

Thanks for coming out Mick! (it takes a BIG man to do that)

I'm totally with you on the issue of discrimination against small classes though, darling.

However, as previously explained, I'm just not sure whether a record-based system could work with a multi-venue championship. More to the point, I'm more than happy to have a good chat through with you both over a glass of pink lemonade at Shelsley (ps SWMBO is coming with me to SW, so we'll have to be discreet).

L

The word "dog" never bit anybody.

Dyrr Ardash

[-]

Posts: 215

(09/14/09 12:02:12)

Moderator

All,

I specifically did not want to single out the "suggestion", as I wanted people's views on the current scoring system - positive or negative with the hope of some lateral thought.

The reasons;
1) We had no negative feedback in the questionaire last year.
2) The comm. have been happy with the scoring system for a number of years (as have competitors more importantly).
3) The MSC system seems to be acknowledged as one of the best if not the best and many championship's seem to be adopting it (or parts of it).

Since Mick's suggestion, I have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject. I also plan to do some analysis on scores (not just for this year, which I think has seen 2 specific "conditions" - low event turnouts across all events and pretty dry events throughout the year, but also last year).

A couple of things to add;
1) The 20.5 & 20 rule was added many years ago to avoid people winning the championship in a poorly supported class (before records were introduced). 20.5 specifically to avoid having 1 car with 2 drivers of different abilities easily winning the title - Anyone remember the Sprint Leaders debacle at Croft in 2002????

2) Using class records alone had been discounted on 2 counts;
i) Not all class records were "robust". Now, times have moved on (excuse the pun) and this probably is not such an issue.
ii) Wet events. Simply scoring off a class record would not work and effectively "void" the event for anyone who competed and the NSCC "wet event" again is not perfect.

I fully understand people's grievance about being penalised for not getting a "maximum" when the only 1 or 2 in the class, however quick they are. I will go away and do some analysis on the results and try and provide some feedback on how many this effects.

The situation may have changed from when that decision was made, so we will take things into consideration.

Just to note, not that many years ago someone would have won the title without having to score the 8 "maximums". In the end they did, but the
title had already been won.

Please continue with the excellent posting and emails. It is your championship

Regards

Dyrr

LCM

[-]

Posts: 37

(09/14/09 13:21:08)

Remove this ad

Thank you!

L

01smartc

[-]

Posts: 29

(09/14/09 15:30:31)

I think the system is pretty good as it is. A few times this year I have walked away with 20 points for 2nd even tho I only had to drive round and finish (easier said than done in some cases!)

I think it allows the people who arnt always at the top to have a chance to pick up some good points.. if it was done all on records or a similar system then I would only be pickin up around 10 points at an event and come away a little disheartened. I know that even if I turn up at an event martin depper is entered (lets be honest im not getting near him any time soon) I can still take away a good 20 points if I get a second. This creates a good bit of racing between the few that arnt at the top all the time like at llandow when me a arron had a good race. We both knew that martin would win but it was just as good racing for the 20 points. If it was done on records we were both a good 8 seconds behind him so would have got bout 12 points each.. hardly worth bothering lol.

I do agree that at some times when 2 cars are entered and first place only get 20.5 points this can be a little harsh... I mean at pembrey martin was a good 10 seconds ahead of me but only picked up 0.5 points more as we were the only 2 entered. I suggest that in this case maybe the car in first place gets the whole 21 points if the beats second by a certain margin... say 3 or 4 seconds. This means 1st will be pushing to make the gap and 2nd will be pushing to try and close the gap. I think this would give some better racing and also allow the front runners to gain full points. Maybe if 2nd doesnt get within a certain margin they drop some points... thats stops peolpe like me just sunday driving around the course and picking up 20 points

Anyway im happy with how it is, ive picked up 80 points this year for turning up a driving round

Chris

sarahb

[-]

Posts: 37

(09/15/09 11:31:13)

"I think the system is pretty good as it is. A few times this year I have walked away with 20 points for 2nd even tho I only had to drive round and finish (easier said than done in some cases!)"

Hi Chris

I fully understand that the 20 points for just driving round (for second place in a class of two or just turning up in a class of one) keeps you in sight of the leaders and if you had just driven round at 8 events you would be in 13th place with 160 points.

The man in 14th place would be John Moxham in his 205. John has battled all year against Tony Hart, Dean Maddock and others in 3B. He has won his class on 4 occasions and kept in touch with the leaders at others. John for all his efforts at 8 events has only scored 159.77 points ???

Cheers. Mick

01smartc

[-]

Posts: 30

(09/16/09 02:16:34)

Yes I fully agree that is a little unfair... thats why i suggest that in the event of 2 cars... to get 20 points you must be within a certain time. This would stop people playing it safe driving round and make them work a bit harder for the 20 points.

If it worked the other way aswell, the person in first gets the full 21 points if they beat 2nd by a certain time that would also be fairer on cars that win by a mile. Allowing them to gain the full 21 points.

LCM

[-]

Posts: 38

(09/16/09 14:01:47)

We seem to be stuck here on the essential problem of giving 20 points to the 2nd in class no matter how uncompetitive they are on the day. Although this method gives a nice close battle, it can throw up structural anomolies as Mick has pointed out.

Surely 'twould be simpler if the first in class (whether MSC registered or not) got 20 points (irrespective of class size) and every one else in the class got 20 points minus their time difference from the class winner. This would incentivise competitors to try to get as good a time as possible even if they are in a big and competitive class and can't get in the top 2 or 3 on the day. It also balances out most of the vicissitudes of weather and venue.

Ta da!

Go on - you know it makes sense!

k13job

[-]

Posts: 32

(09/25/09 11:14:19)

I have lost 1.5 points so far this season due to reduced entries, no complaints just unfortunate that not not enough turned up. It would still not have been enough to beat Lindsay who won the head to heads (by a big margin). I also lost a point by a missed gear change at Anglesey,but that is just racing...

I like the 20 points for second as the basis for the scoring. It accounts for the case when a "National" competitor appears and wins by a lot in our essentially club championship. It also rewards winning on the day when 2nd is close behind.

I have competed under many different scemes any overall this seams one of the best. I would however suggest that full points (1st or 2nd) plus bonus should be given when the record is broken irrespective how many are in the class.

Dyrr Ardash

[-]

Posts: 218

(10/07/09 11:09:20)

Moderator

k13job wrote:
I would however suggest that full points (1st or 2nd) plus bonus should be given when the record is broken irrespective how many are in the class.

Angus, Could you just confirm that you are suggesting that if you finish 2nd in the class, but break a record then you should get 21pts + the record amount?
You always get a bonus even if you finish 17 out of 17 and break the record.

In addition to that I did say that I would get back to you on the basis of investigating how previous year's championship's would have been decided based on the "proposed" methods.
Unfortunatley, I have not done previous years but have done an investigation on this year's championship as the impact on low class numbers seems to main cause for concern. Therefore, I have looked at the following;

1) The current scoring system.
2) A system based purely on records. (As Mick has suggested and one used by; Nottingham, Gurston & Harewood)
3) The current scoring system with the addition where if only 1 or 2 in the class you will score the full 21pts if you win the class and get to within 2% of the class record. (Think approx 0.6sec at Curborough / SW & approx 2 sec @ the long circuits)

I always like quantative based decisions, so didn't want to state anything about anyones suggestions before doing the analysis, but I personally have
had reservations on "record" only points scoring. The reasons are;

1. Wet events effecting the final score dramatically. (I don't like "wet" event fudge factors either)
2. Race car & Sports Libre records being very strong. (Look at Gurston & Harewood where the classes don't really get a look in)

For this investigation I have looked at our Top 3 (read 4) competitors + Dave West (who finished 22nd, but in a very competitive 1B) & Andrew Cottrill (who competes in SC in his
pretty quick Imprezza. Andrew more than anyone has a lack of class "mates")

For each scoring system I have added some useful information.

Current Scoring System

	Current		Events	Max Score
1	Martin Depper	170.43	15	8
2	Sarah Bosworth	168.38	11	7
3	Lindsay Mercer	167.50	8	7
4	Stewart Lobley	167.50	8	5
5	Andrew Cottril	163.00	9	0
6	Dave West	160.69	9	1

Records Only Scoring System

			Min Score to count from records
1	Martin Depper	162.39	19.97
2	Sarah Bosworth	156.95	18.12
3	Andrew Cottril	156.45	17.46
4	Dave West	150.73	18.40
5	Stewart Lobley	147.94	8.51
6	Lindsay Mercer	137.95	14.83

Note 1 - Lindsay's score is significantly effectd even though he has not been beaten at a MSC round this year.
Note 2 - Stewart's very low 8.51 which was a wet event, as he only did 8 events he had to count this one. (He won the class that day.)
Note 3 - Dave's very high min score in the very competitive 1B.
Note 4 - How far Martin is in front of everyone. The championship would have been over by early August! (Maybe Dave Marshall may have got closer)

2% Rule Scoring System

			Revised No. of Maximums
1	Martin Depper	170.43	13
2	Sarah Bosworth	168.88	8
3	Andrew Cottril	168.50	8
4	Stewart Lobley	168.50	6
5	Lindsay Mercer	168.00	6
6	Dave West	160.69	1

Note 1 - Martin scores 13 maximums
Note 2 - Sarah, Andrew & Linday all get their 8 maximums.
Note 3 - Championship scoring very close, especially for 2nd!

(If I have calculated anything incorrectly, then please let me know!)

So, what does this say to me?
1. The current scoring system is pretty good. We definately got the right winner!

2. My concerns with "records" only system are shown to be true in the limited number of people I have analysed. You could change the records to be Nat B / MSC only, but I think that may detract a little from the championship - Any thoughts? - Still left with the wet weather issue though! I also think someone could run away with the championship, which should be another consideration I guess?

3. The "2% rule" seems to alleviate a lot of people's concerns of not being able to get a 21. (I don't think we should give a 21 just for turning up. As I would hate someone to finish in the Top 5 because they turned up 8 times when no one else was there and then got soundly thrashed every other time.) With this you would obviously still be elligible for your record bonus if you break the record.
There is one downside to it and that is a wet event. But at least the wet event is only going to affect a "bonus" rather than the main part of your day's score.

My thought is that the 2% targets could also be put on the records document at the begining of the year, so competitors do not have to get the calculators out at a damp Curborough!

If people want to calculate their own scores with any of the 2 new proposed systems then please let me know the results / or post on here.

That said unless anyone
a) has any major objections,
b) has a fantastic other idea they wish to share that has no negatives and loads of positives.
It looks like this 2% rule maybe a goer...

All the best

Dyrr

Last Edited By: Dyrr Ardash 10/07/09 11:13:40. Edited 2 times.

quattroracing

[-]

Posts: 15

(10/07/09 12:34:40)

Hi all

sorry to be a stick in the mud and believe me I have sympathy with the less supported classes. 1C many years ago was quite lonely. but im not sure the 2% rule does adress the issues.

If Ive got it right youre saying you will reward an undersupported class winner with extra points for getting within 2% of the record. Thats great if you are in a competitve car.....what if you arent. it makes no difference to them.

You should only consider making a change to the system to benefit undersupported classes if it will truly benefit any competitor in that class which this wont.

k13job

[-]

Posts: 33

(10/08/09 10:25:19)

The 2% rule pretty much covers my concerns (ignore the incorrect reference to 2nd).
But why 2%, what is the rationale for the figure? why not 5 or 10, or 1?

Last Edited By: k13job 10/08/09 10:27:36. Edited 1 times.

sarahb

[-]

Posts: 40

(10/08/09 14:04:02)

k13job wrote:
The 2% rule pretty much covers my concerns (ignore the incorrect reference to 2nd).
But why 2%, what is the rationale for the figure? why not 5 or 10, or 1?

The 2% is pretty good. It gives a target time, that if achieved were there 3 the class, would almost certainly win the class.

As an example the target time for next year in 2E will be 61.24 plus (2%) 1.22 = 62.46.

So if you are in a class of one or two, to qualify for a full 21 point score you need to equal or beat 62.46.

The best time for 3 times Midland Speed Champion Gary Thomas in his Elise at Curborough was 62.44 so he would have just scraped a maximum by 00.02 sec.

So anyone who can achieve the 2% target time of 62.46 deserves the 21 points.

As far as I can see only one Elise has gone sub 62.46 this year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you move it to 3% and a target time of 63.08 there are probably only 2 or 3 currently competing Elise drivers that can go sub 63 at Curborough.

Still a very difficult target to achieve and a possible alternative to 2%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the target time were 10% then an Elise doing 67.36 would get a maximum & this is far too easy.

If the target time were 5% then an Elise doing 64.30 would get a maximum & again this is do-able by too many cars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So 2% or 3% are the options.

I guess Dyrr has done these calculations looking at other venues and classes and concluded that 2% is the best option.

Cheers Mick & Sarah

LCM

[-]

Posts: 40

(10/09/09 13:47:09)

Remove this ad

Sorry to be the pourer of cold water BUT..............................

While interesting, Dyrr's analysis of other scoring methods doesn't really prove anything about any of the alternative scoring systems. There are too many unknown variables to prevent any valid conclusion being drawn apart from "the results under the current system are the results under the current system".

Let me give just a few examples:
- no account is taken of the propensity of the human animal to "game", particularly in a competitive situation. Apart from a couple of social scientists I've probably lost most people here, but let me explain. I "gamed" at most events during the year in that (in classic Stirling Moss fashion) I drove just fast enough to win the class or evaluate the performance of my car for development purposes. So, we can't draw any valid conclusions about what the results would have been had I gone as fast as possible at every event
- the practice of giving bonus points for breaking a record is suspect. Indeed Dyrr's own discourse supports this view in that it acknowledges that the records for some classes (basically slicks and wings classes) are particularly "hard" as they are effectively Nat A records while some are at Nat B level and are relatively "soft". Is this what we want?
- the 2% target for small classes looks arbitrary - how do we know that this is the right level?
- the comparison is based upon incomplete information eg I was afflicted during the year by both a disintegrating clutch and H1N1 (at different times, I should point out) which resulted in me missing events at which I had a high likelihood of both winning the class and breaking a record. Had I not been thus afflicted my final points score would have been different under all 3 systems in the comparison. Please understand that this is not a complaint or sour grapes but simply an illustration, I'm sure that we could all cite external circumstances which affected our scores, positively or negatively.
- perhaps more fundamentally the comparison supposes that we got the right winner - how do we know? All we know is that we got the right winner under the current scoring system and the 2 others selected for comparison.

It would be interesting, I think, to see the effect of the simple scoring system that I proposed on 16 Sept - are you up for this Dyrr? I suspect that it would provide very close scores at the top with a lot of equal points but bigger gaps to the rest of the field. The question then would be "how would we resolve the draws and why?". This might give a clue as to the way forward.

Surely if we are to change the scoring, we have to start from the fundamental questions of "what is the MSC for" and "what are the attributes of the person that we wish to win the championship", then work backwards using logical reasoning to derive a scoring system that will give that result.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Championship Scoring System - 2010

Championship Scoring System - 2010