Phil 303 Posted November 20, 2003 I think some of the idea’s are good to come out of the conference but we ALWAYS see either no rules or rules changing throughout the season which make some of the good ideas a joke! Some one brought up the point that the team to win this year will be the team that exploits so the so called rules the most. - Agree I put it to the BSPA to publish in full the rules or notes etc. to the speedway public well before the season starts and if possible before the team building. If they are open about it then there is a lot less chance of different scenarios being missed in the rules. If not at least publish them to some people outside the BSPA committee to analyses such as the likes of Kevin Meynell and John Lowe thats if they have not left speedway for good already. Will the BSPA ever listen! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philfromcov 326 Posted November 20, 2003 What has occured to me tho is that the grading will have to be last years top 10 and not based on averages (see prvious comments) however for this to work it would imply that the top 10 must confirm that they will all ride in the elite before the next grade can be completed. effectivley the top 30 of last year are guarenteed a team Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagonshocker 1,956 Posted November 20, 2003 I am with Steve Shovelar here. I do not think it was a bad AGM, and in fact, some good decisions were taken.10 Team in the EL...Brilliant, and if rider Grading has helped secure that, by freeing up some top Boys for Swindon and Arena, then Brilliant. Its a price worth paying for all EL Clubs. Doing away with doubling down, and doubling up ( in most cases) excellent, but I applaud the start of a Squad system by allowing all EL clubs to sign some young PL Guys on a double up basis. Bit confused by the new Joker system, but for many Non Speedway people, or casual Fans, they understand the Joker scenario far mor readily that a Tac Sub. Its also better for the reserves and second strings, means they have more rides. All in all, not bad. not totally in keeping with this thread but all the talk about swindon & arena needing help with there line ups m akes me wonder if anyones forgetting the weakness currently of the ipswich 7 oxford teams???....i mean all ippo have at the moment in quality is scotty boy and oxford are currently heatleader less!! lol just a fort! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Meynell 2 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) What has occured to me tho is that the grading will have to be last years top 10 and not based on averages Piecing together the various bits of information I've heard about the grading system, it seems that the grades will be based around averages. Realistically it has to be that way as some riders may drop-out, others will come in and so on.. It would seem there will be six grades, which I'm guessing will be something like the following... Grade 1 - 10.01 to 12.00 (6 points) Grade 2 - 8.51 to 10.00 (5 points) Grade 3 - 7.01 to 8.50 (4 points) Grade 4 - 5.51 to 7.00 (3 points) Grade 5 - 4.00 to 5.50 (2 points) Grade 6 - Below 4.00 (1 point) I'm not sure about the lower grades, as grading would eliminate the need for minimum assessed averages. However, I think we can assume that Grade 4 will be based around the 6.00-point mark. It would seem that teams can then choose their seven riders from any category up to a total of 19 points. This corresponds to around a 41-point limit (including bonus) using the median values, but teams could effectively go as high as 46, or go as low as 35.5 points. Edited November 20, 2003 by Kevin Meynell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philfromcov 326 Posted November 20, 2003 you seem to know whats going on? do you have a hot line? and a grade with only Jason Crump in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philfromcov 326 Posted November 20, 2003 just been looking at this wrt coventry we have 25 points, so we would lose hamill Robson and be replaced with two 1 "point" riders ie below 4 average giving you an idea Richardson another (sub 4.00) Janniro Fisher Jonsson bunyan another (sub 4.00) also the points between the leagues? would they be doubled/halfed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest lofqvist Posted November 20, 2003 They must drink more and more each year at the AGM because every year the rules and regulations become even more of a joke and so much more confusing.A load of old garbage in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Meynell 2 Posted November 20, 2003 you seem to know whats going on?and a grade with only Jason Crump in? I'm guessing at the grade boundaries. I just heard that six grades were proposed, with each team allowed a maximum of 19 points. Given that the average rider has around a 6.00-point average, and that a low points limit would have been required to accommodate the new teams, you can make a reasonable guess at what the grades will be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lanzilla 0 Posted November 20, 2003 (edited) One other ruling that comes into effect next season in the KO Cup is the 13A ruling.This should avoid any further embarrassment for Coventry fans as there will no longer be a Heat 14. 1-13 then 13A then heat 15. Edited November 20, 2003 by Lanzilla Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Star Lady 5,400 Posted November 20, 2003 I'm guessing at the grade boundaries. I just heard that six grades were proposed, with each team allowed a maximum of 19 points. Talk about complicated. Build a team to an average of 45 points I (and most others) can understand but now we have build a team to a max of 19 points but they are not real points they are grading points which are based on real points that occur in a match which you win if you score over 45 points. I suppose I should be grateful only the EL are playing these nonsensical games but I do fear the PL may follow next season if only to spare the EL promoters blushes Can someone wake me up from this nightmare Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsunami 10,219 Posted November 20, 2003 Interesting to see that the early kneejerkers are now showing a bit more reserve and even thinking that some of the things might work. Contributors such as Rabbit, Steve Shovlar, Martin Palmer and Kevin Hammond have come in later and can see some merit in what has been agreed. I am strongly with them as they have expressed their views despite being hit with undeserved critisism. Pity everyone cant think and then print. I personally dont agree with the Golden double starting from 15m and double points but you are never going to get everything that you want. I cannot see the total objection to guest for only No1. I appreciate there is problems aheat in terms of multiple injuries but remember the general gist of the forum was that the guest were a joke and could not be explained to a newcomer. BSPA cut there use to one and everbody is up in arms and saying that the BSPA does not listen to them. What would have happened if they had banned all guests, there would have been outrage that BSPA were destroying the sport. All in all, I dont think the decisions are bad. We had to deal with many stupid decisions last year and got throught it, this year will be simpler. As a sport, I think speedway fans know more about their sport than any other sport but unfortunately they turn on their own sport at every opportunity. Lets look for something good in the sport to talk about, a potential fan looking at some of these comments would be put off for life. Smile if you like speedway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted November 20, 2003 What would have happened if they had banned all guests, there would have been outrage that BSPA were destroying the sport. I'd have been happy then, how can you say only a guest for a number 1 but not have a squad system?! As I have said, I'm willing to give this a chance but I think it should be all or nothing not mid-way t try and please everyone as it actually annoys almost everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevH 257 Posted November 20, 2003 Contributors such as Rabbit, Steve Shovlar, Martin Palmer and Kevin Hammond have come in later and can see some merit in what has been agreed. I am strongly with them as they have expressed their views despite being hit with undeserved critisism. Pity everyone cant think and then print. Many thanks for the recognition Tsunami, and interestingly that is Poole 2-2 Oxford. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Meynell 2 Posted November 20, 2003 I am strongly with them as they have expressed their views despite being hit with undeserved critisism. Unfortunately, the few sensible or fairly reasonable decisions have been completely overshadowed by all the other nonsense. It's not a question of a kneejerk reaction against particular changes, but whether these changes will bring in one extra fan through the turnstiles. In the meantime, the sport becomes uncomprehensive to the existing fans who can't or don't want to be bothered keeping up with all the pointless tinkering. It is of course necessary to tinker with league structures in a sport which leads a marginal existence, but the basic rules of running a meeting should remain stable. How often do the laws of football change. We've seen about ten changes in 100 years, as a result, it's become accessible to everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BritPete 625 Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Not to sure about the grading system, but, surely it is worth a try, it does seem to give the teams more scope to build their teams, and I recall that Coventry had to make a choice between Hamill and Hancock not long ago, so, the Wolves situation with the brothers is nothing new. Also, the averages do get a bit complex. The Golden Joker rule is a golden joke, starting from scratch for DOUBLE points! this has been used in the SWC, it robbed the Aussie's of a deserved win last season and I seem to recall that it cost England dearly at PB the previous year, the original rule has been tried and trusted over the years, so why change it? The weakness of this rule is that it can produce false results. Edited November 21, 2003 by BritPete Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
