The Heat Leader List....

[g13webb 4,254]

I've been called many names of late, so being labelled 'Thick and Bias' is nothing new. In Jon Cook's SS article, he goes to some length explaining how the Elite league has benefitted from the protected heat format, that was introduced 2 years ago, he also, accepts that consequently the CMA, now bear little resemblance of what they are intended for. What a pity the 'Powers at B' didn't persevere with a formula to weight the averages, instead of a common consensus of a heat leader list, based on bias opinions....

 

And they call us thick !!!!!

[Hamish McRaker 601]

Call me thick, but I am still not 100% sure who this Jon Cook is.

Is he that lanky fella with the big beak down in Essex?

Don't mind being called thick because there's an element of truth there, but BIASED??? Nobody calls me that and gets away with it! Would like to have a frank conversation with him in person but there's a few hundred miles between me and Essex.

 

Anyway, SCB did you offer to let BSPA use your rational and logical method/program for producing a set of realistic rider averages? And if you did, what was the response?

 

And I am presuming that Mr Cock is speaking on behalf of the BSPA in his description of those who have dared to question their potty list (even more potty, now the truth about the method used is out!). Highly embarrassing for them.

 

And finally....when all is said and done, has this list really made any difference to team building, so far?

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

Sidder asked the question/made the point "who has been disadvantaged by it"

 

Would be interesting to see the team strengths and how they vary using SCBs formula to assess that.

[CB252 1,376]

Sidder asked the question/made the point "who has been disadvantaged by it"

 

Coventry, because King shouldn't be on the list.

 

If he wasn't on it, they could have retained Kylmakorpi as well instead of gambling on the poxy Pole.

[Woz01 3,589]

 

Coventry, because King shouldn't be on the list.

 

If he wasn't on it, they could have retained Kylmakorpi as well instead of gambling on the poxy Pole.

Which is probably why they voted him on the list, biased anyone? Our top 5 was considered poor but 4 of them made the list!

[Theboss 727]

Jon Cook has "explained" in Speedway Star how the heat leader list was arrived at.

 

A lot of what he says is about studying the obvious stuff about second string averages being higher than those of heat leaders and not being able to come up with a suitable formula.

 

All 8 clubs went through the averages rider by rider and .......... decided! If there were any doubts they went to a majority vote.

 

"It was as simple as that, Every club ticked off who they felt were heat leaders."

 

"Grading of heat leaders was done by common consensus of the EL promoters via an open poll and anyone thinking that's wrong is either thick or biased, or both."

 

For me one of speedway's USP's has always been rider and team averages. I remember building many teams in the past that were .01 over the points limit and pulling my hair out as I have had to rebuild it to ensure I stayed within the limit, however it was the rules and is a great way to give a LEVEL playing field and ensure the fans have something to keep them interested in all year round.

 

For me I hold my hands up and admit I must be 'thick' as moving away from making any decisions purely based on numbers is the start of a slippery road and in the end we will have a sport which is no longer governed by numbers and therefore has one less USP and no LEVEL playing field.

[damosuzuki 696]

 

For me one of speedway's USP's has always been rider and team averages. I remember building many teams in the past that were .01 over the points limit and pulling my hair out as I have had to rebuild it to ensure I stayed within the limit, however it was the rules and is a great way to give a LEVEL playing field and ensure the fans have something to keep them interested in all year round.

 

For me I hold my hands up and admit I must be 'thick' as moving away from making any decisions purely based on numbers is the start of a slippery road and in the end we will have a sport which is no longer governed by numbers and therefore has one less USP and no LEVEL playing field.

If I could like this post more than once I would.

[g13webb 4,254]

I inadvertently posted this on the wrong thread.!! Sorry.....

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:49 PM

I think the whole article in the SS was a Kop-out, and the name calling at the end of the passage was nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the true implications of their decisions. He states CMA are all over the place and bear no relevance to the rider, only the position he races at, He then demises the idea of weighted calculation saying their were no exact formula that would be fair to all. I find this contrary to the used method of BSPA of converting PL and EL averages. Surely that's not an exact formula either, but it is the accepted practice.

 

In a sport where the CMA is of paramount importance, we now have a system where the Reserves and Second strings score points, more easy than the top riders, giving false calculation of team strength. To try and rectify this situation, it was decided to construct a Heatleader list, allowing teams to pick only three. This may have assured some form of equality between the team building, but it will do nothing to assist the levelling of the points collection in their races. The heat leaders will have the hardest races, followed by the Second Strings and the Reserves outscoring all with they're protected format. When the first set of figures become a available, we will have 2nd Strings riding at Reserve , we might even have Reserves riding as heat leaders. In fact all the reasons why the format was changed to have like riding against like will the go out of the window. Then we have to ask why was it changed in the first place.

 

Regardless of how the list was assembled, it has now created another problem in that riders not on the list are more valuable to teams than those on it. Riders like Lambert and Buzz are now worth their weight in gold.

It would have been so simple and straight forward to have weighted the CMA of all the riders, as illustrated by SCB ( poster not the organisation) when a heat leader list would not have been necessary . The CMA would then have meant something. Without being, a true representation of riders ability, the CMA serves no purpose at all.

[SPEEDY69 1,260]

sorry posted on wrong thread

Edited December 21, 2015 by SPEEDY69

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

The sport should be ran by a independent person & not by promotors who have an ulterior motive.

 

Promotors should run their clubs & that should be it.

 

How do you fail to see that?.

 

Because most clubs are loss making, you can't have that. It is simply a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

However............

 

All that is really needed is an effective SCB. They should properly scrutinise the proposed rule book each year, refuse to approve any rules which are open to interpretation or just plain silly and advise what amendments or changes are needed. They should police decisions made by the BSPA and investigate and rule on any decisions which are contrary to the approved rules or not in the best interests of the sport. They should be empowered to take the initiative and not have to rely on people within the sport fist having to report matters to them by way of complaint or an appeal.

 

I'd completely agree here if members of the BSPA weren't also members of the SCB. The SCB simply isn't impartial.

 

What it needs is someone from outside the sport - not to make the rules (as that must be the prerequisite of the BSPA) but to ensure that they are complied with and to make binding rulings when there is a dispute.

 

In that way, we won't have a member of the BSPA management committee deciding whether his track can have a guest in place of a missing rider.

 

Sadly, it'll never happen. There's far too many people at the heart of the sport who will insist that as well as the rulebook 'the interests of speedway' must apply, despite the fact that the two can be entirely incompatible.

 

Using the justification that the 'promoters all agreed to it' is woefully inadequate anyway Skidder.....the people in charge of our sport have shown time and time again that they are completely incapable of making decisions and regulations that benefit British speedway.

 

Put your finger right on it for me . 'We were all agreed on it so it must be fair' is anything but persuasive.

 

Wasn't the draft system couched in similar terms ?

 

 

What they achieved is a heat leader list that they all agreed to so that team building could commence with the agreed maximum of 3 per team from the list.

 

Who exactly has been disadvantaged by it??

 

A few disgruntled forumers whose alternative formula wasn't used and who rarely attend meetings anyway!!

 

The poor language is uncalled for though - probably why they don't bother much with this forum!!

 

I don't think anyone is more disadvantaged by it than the points limit rule, for example..........but that's not my beef.

 

Reading the pages of this thread, the heat leader list was 'mysterious' until Speedway Star published it (apparently without BSPA permission). Belatedly, it was then made available for all to see.

 

It would be easy to draw the conclusion that the BSPA's hand was forced by Speedway Star's action, so the intention was to cover it up for as long as possible. Further, no explanation has been made for those that are included and those that are not. To some, it appears to be entirely arbitrary and based upon 'feeling and opinion'.

 

Is it to much to ask for an explanation as to why this has been chosen and why certain riders are on it and certain ones are not ?

 

I'd say not, but Jon Cook clearly disagrees.

 

In truth, it comes down to the same old thing : a determination to keep matters from the very people who keep the sport alive and that's something that I (and I am pretty sure I am not alone) find hard to accept.

..... And changing the rules which fundamentally impact the sport without firstly clearly explaining to its paying customers why the rules have changed, the rationale used for the changes and indeed the riders the changes impact is, I would suggest, also a bit 'thick'...

 

(Even more so when your patrons have built up a less than generous view of your competence in decision making, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of your previous 'track record')...

 

Precisely

Edited January 2, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[Aces51 2,778]

I agree with everything said by Halifaxtiger.

 

My point about the SCB is that I cannot see the BSPA agreeing to an independent individual or body to ensure compliance with the rules and to make binding rulings. I put forward the SCB as a realistic viable option which they may accept. It would be up to the SCB to ensure that those members dealing with breaches or interpretations of the rules did not have any conflict of interest, at the very least were not connected to any team involved and that the BSPA representatives were always in a minority.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Aces51

[E I Addio 15,845]

I agree with everything said by Halifaxtiger.

My point about the SCB is that I cannot see the BSPA agreeing to an independent individual or body to ensure compliance with the rules and to make binding rulings. I put forward the SCB as a realistic viable option which they may accept. It would be up to the SCB to ensure that those members dealing with breaches or interpretations of the rules did not have any conflict of interest, at the very least were not connected to any team involved and that the BSPA representatives were always in a minority.

Your point about the SCB is more than a viable option, it is to my mind by far the most sensible option, and indeed the only sensible and workable option.

 

Speedwáy, comes under the general authority of the ACU . The ACU delegate management of the sport to the SCB who in turn delegate the day to day running to the BSPA. To add another body with a say in how the sport is run is adding another level of management to a sport that already has more lavels of management than any other discipline of motor cycle sport in this country. It would be a recipe for disaster, as things invariably are when there are too many fingers in the pie. The whole problem stems from weakness at the SCB as you point out. There should be a "Chinese wall" between the SCB and the BSPA and that would avoid a whole lot of problems.

Edited January 2, 2016 by E I Addio

[bigcatdiary 3,165]

The problem is the SCB are not in control of the relevant sections of the rule book that cause all the problems, the BSPA control the sections applicable to the EL and PL a point the SCB manager Graham Reeve has pointed out to me several times.

 

In addition two members of the SCB management are BSPA promoters (Alex Harkess & Gordon Pairman) so are hardly Impartial.

[E I Addio 15,845]

The problem is the SCB are not in control of the relevant sections of the rule book that cause all the problems, the BSPA control the sections applicable to the EL and PL a point the SCB manager Graham Reeve has pointed out to me several times.

In addition two members of the SCB management are BSPA promoters (Alex Harkess & Gordon Pairman) so are hardly Impartial.

Can you clarify what you mean by the BSPA having "control " of the relevant sections of the rule book? Do you simply mean they have control of the interpretation of the rules (i.e. the MC ) or is there more to it than that ? It certainly suggests the tail is wagging the dog but it would be interesting to know to what extent.

[baba 562]

Does this mean that by the end of 2016 season each rider in the EL will have a real time c.m.a?

 

Is the Permier heading for the same problem next year?

 

Does all this confusion lead to a combined league for 2017.

 

Should SCB(the poster) contact the other scb to work out the averages for them and save them all this embarrassment?