The New Scoring System

[Grachan 7,362]

I quite liked the system in a way as it made each race seem more important throughout the match. It's certainly fair way to decide the points.

 

Slight negatives though. The final didn't seem to be quite so important as it did in the past, and Nicki's celebrations seemed slightly muted as he must have already known that he had the meeting in the bag. Also, I do think the top scorer should be meeting winner rather than the winner of the final - like they used to do (still do?) with Long Track meetings.

 

Overall, though, I think it's a pretty good system, but my guess is it won't last long as the final isn't quite so dramatic.

[AndyM 1]

An improvement - a fairer system for everyone. Much better.

[Bonsai Diamond 0]

im happy with it, its about time the semi finalists got rewarded for making the semis, and that those who make the final score double points, apart from the 4th place loser.

[Subedei 0]

It worked out okay, in the end. But, imagine if all results had remained the same, but Hancock had won the final. Hancock would've won the GP, but Nicki P would be leading the world championship by a single point.

[Bradford Ace 183]

Without being 2 negative, i think the new points system is actually worse than last yr!!

 

i thought the whole idea in Ole Olsen changing it was to try and make sure that one person does not run away with the title like Rickardsson & Crumpy have done over the last 2 years??

 

He has now changed it again but now there is an even bigger gap between last nights 4 finalists, as well as the rest!! If we went on last years scoring the leaderboard would be Nikki P on 25, Greg, 20, Jagus 18 & Crumpy 16 with only 9 points between the top 4 whereas now its Nikki P 24, Greg, 19, Jagus 14 & Crumpy only 12 so there is now a massive 12 points between 1st & 4th!! It seems to me with this scoring system that the gap could become even bigger and therefore the World Champ could be decided even earlier than previous years!

 

I totally agree that the losing semi finalists should get points but why not just stick to the traditional 3,2,1,0 for the semi & then the final also?? This would surely make sure that one person doesnt break away from the rest as much as the maximum points anyone could achieve would only be 21?? The gap now between Nikki on 24 & the likes of Scotty & AJ is huge already & leaves the guys who failed to make the top 8 too far behind even after one round..

 

What do ya think??

[full-throttle 182]

i still feel the picking of the gate has a lot to do with the final outcome, on last nights evidence nicki p was head and shoulders above the rest, but if the gates were ballotted and nicki had ended up with 3 or 4 would the result have been the same.

 

so keep the double points but lose the gate choice for the final only...

Edited April 29, 2007 by full-throttle

[SCB 0]

I agree with Grachan. It made every race more important and added a little more tention through the whole meeting but the final was a bit flat, it was just another race.

[longlivefrankie 458]

i think points system was as good as youre going to get it...

with haiving a semis & final

go forbid fiddling with it to make results closer...

this way i think the guy who wins most races throughout GP will be world champion?

Edited April 29, 2007 by longlivefrankie

[stuart road 0]

It worked out okay, in the end. But, imagine if all results had remained the same, but Hancock had won the final. Hancock would've won the GP, but Nicki P would be leading the world championship by a single point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i have to say i prefer this system,and its strength is borne out by your second scenario.

 

previously

rider a,could win all five races,and his semi and then come second in the final and find himself 5 points behind,rider b,who scores 7 in the qualifiers,scrapes through to the semi's,where an engine failure presents him with a place in the final.

 

rider a, 3,3,3,3,3,3,2 =20 points

rider b, 1,2,2,1,1,2,3 =25 points

 

personally regardless of who wins gp,and who scores most points,i think this is a much fairer way to go.

 

all we now need to do is come up with a system so the farce that transpired in heat one doesn't happen.

 

now what would have happened in the much maligned elite league??

[stuart road 0]

I agree with Grachan.  It made every race more important and added a little more tention through the whole meeting but the final was a bit flat, it was just another race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

not if you had £350 on nicki at 8/1

[Bradford Ace 183]

i think points system was as good as youre going to get it...

with haiving a semis & final

go forbid fiddling with it to make results closer...

this way i think the guy who wins most races throughout GP will be world champion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sadly i dont think thats true by giving a massive 6 points to the winner of the final..take last nite for example..Nikki P got 15 points from the meeting & then 3 from the semi to total 18..Crumpy got only 10 & was well off the pace followed by 2 from his semi..however, had he then won the final & Nikki was last in it, they would have both scored 18..

 

Nikki would have won 6 races & Jason just 2 so the theory of the guy who wins the most races ending up being World Champ is blown outta the water with that example..

 

Every1 always moans about the double points in EL racing being wrong & here Olsen is introducing it to GP racing. It cant be right surely??

[SCB 0]

go forbid fiddling with it to make results closer...

But it hasn't. First place now has twice the number of points the guy in 4th has, in the past they had 25 and 16, so not such a big gap.

[lucifer sam 3,953]

The new points system is b*ll*cks. Why they didn't just give the third-placed man in the semis one extra point, I'll never know.

 

It's just as easy for a rider to walk away with the championship now, as the standings after one round show.

 

Not only that, but consider this scenario.

 

Rider A scores 7 + 2 + 6 = 15 in each GP. Rider B scores 15 + 1 = 16 in each GP. It's possible for a rider to win every GP, but for the World Champion to be a rider who never reached a single final!

 

Utter tripe. Get rid of it now.

 

All the best

Rob

[manchesterpaul 447]

As pointed out in the thread New Format On Last Years Result - Spot the differences ???, there was no difference to the final standings.

 

It's all merely a case of fiddling with the perspective of the gap between riders. If as an example you say £1 is worth 10 units of another currency, then the difference between £10 and 100 units of the other is 90. However, have £1 equal units 100 and the gap grows to 900.

 

For many of the reasons people have stated above, on the whole, it is a fairer and better system this year. Unfortunately, there is one almighty blunder in the formula. That being the awarding of double points in the final.

 

When the organizers boast (and wish) that the new system means every race counts they, above all, are implying it is the fairest and most equal way to run things. However, as with lots of things, some are more equal than others. In this case the finalists, or at least three of them.

 

In order to make every race valuable towards the race to the title whilst, at the same time, ensuring there are no artificial aids to creating wide gaps in the scoring, and furthermore rightly rewarding success, one needs to allot only normal points in the final. The chance to earn extra points is a balanced reward in it's self.

 

In last night's final Nikki Pedersen could have trailed in fourth and still finished joint top of the Grand Prix points. Okay, awarding 3-2-1-0 would of allowed him to finish solely alone at the top of the standings. However, the gap between himself and the fourth rider would be 4 points instead of the current 12 (or 9 under the old system). Over 11 meetings that sort of gap is going to be far, far better in avoiding losing people's interest in a series.

 

Under my revised version, as in the new, you will get the occasional glitch where the winner of the final 'leg' of the meeting does not gain the most from the 'tie'. That is hardly unique and happens on a massive and frequent scale in every sport in the world. How so?, any sport that has a 'tie' over two 'legs' will have, as an example, a team losing the first match away 2-0 but then winning the 'final' leg at home 1-0. Who gets the overall victory?, rightly so, the one who has performed the best over the whole 'series'.

 

With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[From PC to KC. 25]

As pointed out in the thread New Format On Last Years Result - Spot the differences ???, there was no difference to the final standings.

 

It's all merely a case of fiddling with the perspective of the gap between riders. If as an example you say £1 is worth 10 units of another currency, then the difference between £10 and 100 units of the other is 90. However, have £1 equal units 100 and the gap grows to 900.

 

For many of the reasons people have stated above, on the whole, it is a fairer and better system this year. Unfortunately, there is one almighty blunder in the formula. That being the awarding of double points in the final.

 

When the organizers boast (and wish) that the new system means every race counts, they above all are implying it is the fairest and most equal way to run things. However, as with lots of things, some are more equal than others. In this case the finalists, or at least three of them.

 

In order to make every race valuable towards the race to the title whilst, at the same time, ensuring there are no artificial aids to creating wide gaps in the scoring and, furthermore rightly rewarding success, one needs to allot only normal points in the final. The chance to earn extra points is a balanced reward in it's self.

 

In last night's final Nikki Pedersen could have trailed in fourth and still finished joint top of the Grand Prix points. Okay, awarding 3-2-1-0 would of allowed him to finish solely alone at the top of the standings. However, the gap between himself and the fourth rider would be 4 points instead of the current 12 (or 9 under the old system). Over 11 meetings that sort of gap is going to be far, far better in avoiding losing people's interest in a series.

 

Under the new, and my revised version, you will get the occasional glitch where the winner of the final 'leg' of the meeting, does not gain the most from the 'tie'. That is hardly unique and happens on a massive and frequent scale in every sport in the world. How so?, any sport that has a 'tie' over two 'legs' will have, as an example, a team losing the first match away 2-0 but then winning the 'final' leg at home 1-0. Who gets the overall victory?, rightly so, the one who has performed the best over the whole 'series'.

 

With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as  is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be no chance of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to give an extra incentive to win or you will get riders, riding the percentages and taking the safe option rather than racing for the extra reward of a win.