Team Building Averages

[Teromaafan 586]

We are obsessed with averages for team building in this country, but just how important is it? Take it to the extreme and let a team sign any seven riders of their choice. This will be dictated almost entirely by their budget based on expected average attendances, unlike the Poles who attract significant domestic sponsorship. Pushing the boat out and risking recovering money by attracting more spectators seems to be a tried and tested strategy failure. At what expenditure lengths would a team go to with regard to chasing silverware? The bottom line has to be that the prize for winning a UK domestic speedway title is peanuts so where is the justification logic in a heavy financial outlay?

On this basis, why not just let a team build to its financial budget instead of everyone being hoodwinked into thinking that team average totals are the be and end all and a sport leveller. My honest opinion is that it would not make a massive difference to comparative team strengths in the apparent absence of a rider pay structure within in the sport.

[steve roberts 9,247]

7 minutes ago, Teromaafan said:

We are obsessed with averages for team building in this country, but just how important is it? Take it to the extreme and let a team sign any seven riders of their choice. This will be dictated almost entirely by their budget based on expected average attendances, unlike the Poles who attract significant domestic sponsorship. Pushing the boat out and risking recovering money by attracting more spectators seems to be a tried and tested strategy failure. At what expenditure lengths would a team go to with regard to chasing silverware? The bottom line has to be that the prize for winning a UK domestic speedway title is peanuts so where is the justification logic in a heavy financial outlay?

On this basis, why not just let a team build to its financial budget instead of everyone being hoodwinked into thinking that team average totals are the be and end all and a sport leveller. My honest opinion is that it would not make a massive difference to comparative team strengths in the apparent absence of a rider pay structure within in the sport.

One time Oxford Promoter Bernard Crapper had similar views I recall?

[False dawn 2,307]

We could go back to Rider Control

 

Heaven's forbid 

[steve roberts 9,247]

Trouble is riders are sometimes "declared" because their average fits rather than based on ability especially at the bottom end. Also the "assessed" average was/can cause issues and has in the past been open to "interpretation and/or confusion and/or manipulation" on occasions. Recall Mitch Shirra admitting that Coventry riders were under orders to throw points toward the back end of a particular season so as to lower their averages in readiness for the following season's declaration! I'm sure that this was common practice that was adopted by many teams...recall Malcom Simmons doing same so that he could drop down a league with a re-assessed average.

Also middle order riders were the ones that tended to suffer when teams were declared. I well remember when one of my favourites, Jens Rasmussen, was "sacrificed" on two occasions because of his average and as we know he eventually went to Rye House which opened up a whole new can of worms!

Edited December 12, 2022 by steve roberts

[Daniel Smith 5,672]

9 hours ago, steve roberts said:

Trouble is riders are sometimes "declared" because their average fits rather than based on ability especially at the bottom end. Also the "assessed" average was/can cause issues and has in the past been open to "interpretation and/or confusion and/or manipulation" on occasions. 

This is hugely important that some fans get hung up on. 

Averages aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. The total team average even more so. 

The skill of the system is basically to find rider's that can improve, be it at home, away or both. 

The issue with the average system is that it falls down because promoter's & manager's become attached to rider's, meaning that rider's averages being improve is less likely. 

Wolves is a great example of this. It's a comfortable setup, everyone likes each other & they can almost guarantee a job for next year. Where's the drive to improve as a rider & club??

There's to much sentiment in British Speedway. For me, rider's should be seen as a commodity to achieve the best possible result for the club & fans. 

[steve roberts 9,247]

1 hour ago, Daniel Smith said:

This is hugely important that some fans get hung up on. 

Averages aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. The total team average even more so. 

The skill of the system is basically to find rider's that can improve, be it at home, away or both. 

The issue with the average system is that it falls down because promoter's & manager's become attached to rider's, meaning that rider's averages being improve is less likely. 

Wolves is a great example of this. It's a comfortable setup, everyone likes each other & they can almost guarantee a job for next year. Where's the drive to improve as a rider & club??

There's to much sentiment in British Speedway. For me, rider's should be seen as a commodity to achieve the best possible result for the club & fans. 

Agree entirely especially when it comes to the middle order and/or reserve riders however I do also advocate some sort of continuity which unfortunately points limits doesn't particularly encourage by and large.

Edited December 12, 2022 by steve roberts

[Humphrey Appleby 13,967]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:52 PM, Teromaafan said:

We are obsessed with averages for team building in this country, but just how important is it? Take it to the extreme and let a team sign any seven riders of their choice. This will be dictated almost entirely by their budget based on expected average attendances, unlike the Poles who attract significant domestic sponsorship. Pushing the boat out and risking recovering money by attracting more spectators seems to be a tried and tested strategy failure. At what expenditure lengths would a team go to with regard to chasing silverware? The bottom line has to be that the prize for winning a UK domestic speedway title is peanuts so where is the justification logic in a heavy financial outlay?

On this basis, why not just let a team build to its financial budget instead of everyone being hoodwinked into thinking that team average totals are the be and end all and a sport leveller. My honest opinion is that it would not make a massive difference to comparative team strengths in the apparent absence of a rider pay structure within in the sport.

Because sports leagues stand-and-fall by the competitive and financial health of the majority of the teams, not the ones that can buy their way to success. There will always be those teams with a bigger budget - whether because they have a bigger fanbase and more sponsors, or simply because they're got a rich owner using the team as a plaything - and that either forces the teams to spend above their means, or they become uncompetitive and lose fans and sponsors as a result. Just because some leagues are apparently able to do this, does not mean it's a sensible model or one that should be aspired to. 

You could implement a wage cap, but that only really works if you're able to do some expensive auditing which speedway can't really afford. And no doubt a lot of speedway still works cash-in-hand which is pretty difficult to audit. 

So averages are not the worst method, although they have been misused as a punitive tool rather than one that's used to prevent teams becoming overly strong. There should be encouragement to develop riders over a period time without having to lose them, which could be done with a more intelligent use of a variable points limit and fixed nominal averages for developing riders.  

[steve roberts 9,247]

1 hour ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Because sports leagues stand-and-fall by the competitive and financial health of the majority of the teams, not the ones that can buy their way to success. There will always be those teams with a bigger budget - whether because they have a bigger fanbase and more sponsors, or simply because they're got a rich owner using the team as a plaything - and that either forces the teams to spend above their means, or they become uncompetitive and lose fans and sponsors as a result. Just because some leagues are apparently able to do this, does not mean it's a sensible model or one that should be aspired to. 

You could implement a wage cap, but that only really works if you're able to do some expensive auditing which speedway can't really afford. And no doubt a lot of speedway still works cash-in-hand which is pretty difficult to audit. 

So averages are not the worst method, although they have been misused as a punitive tool rather than one that's used to prevent teams becoming overly strong. There should be encouragement to develop riders over a period time without having to lose them, which could be done with a more intelligent use of a variable points limit and fixed nominal averages for developing riders.  

Agree entirely.

[arnieg 3,658]

1 hour ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Because sports leagues stand-and-fall by the competitive and financial health of the majority of the teams, not the ones that can buy their way to success. There will always be those teams with a bigger budget - whether because they have a bigger fanbase and more sponsors, or simply because they're got a rich owner using the team as a plaything - and that either forces the teams to spend above their means, or they become uncompetitive and lose fans and sponsors as a result. Just because some leagues are apparently able to do this, does not mean it's a sensible model or one that should be aspired to. 

You could implement a wage cap, but that only really works if you're able to do some expensive auditing which speedway can't really afford. And no doubt a lot of speedway still works cash-in-hand which is pretty difficult to audit. 

So averages are not the worst method, although they have been misused as a punitive tool rather than one that's used to prevent teams becoming overly strong. There should be encouragement to develop riders over a period time without having to lose them, which could be done with a more intelligent use of a variable points limit and fixed nominal averages for developing riders.  

Simple solution would be a 5% reduction for retained riders.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,967]

57 minutes ago, arnieg said:

Simple solution would be a 5% reduction for retained riders.

A percentage reduction would weigh more heavily in favour of keeping riders with the highest averages, when ultimately you want to encourage distribution of some of those riders to other teams at some point. It's the up-and-coming riders that ideally you'd want to stay with their teams.

I think a fixed points allowance per retained rider would favour keeping the lower and middle order riders, who'd normally often be sacrificed if they improved their averages. 

[steve roberts 9,247]

8 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

A percentage reduction would weigh more heavily in favour of keeping riders with the highest averages, when ultimately you want to encourage distribution of some of those riders to other teams at some point. It's the up-and-coming riders that ideally you'd want to stay with their teams.

I think a fixed points allowance per retained rider would favour keeping the lower and middle order riders, who'd normally often be sacrificed if they improved their averages. 

I recall a time that British riders were given a reduction in average to encourage declaring a team with a smattering of Brits?

[arnieg 3,658]

9 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

A percentage reduction would weigh more heavily in favour of keeping riders with the highest averages, when ultimately you want to encourage distribution of some of those riders to other teams at some point. It's the up-and-coming riders that ideally you'd want to stay with their teams.

I think a fixed points allowance per retained rider would favour keeping the lower and middle order riders, who'd normally often be sacrificed if they improved their averages. 

I think that's an improvement on my original suggestion. I'd pitch it around 0.25/0.30

[therefused 824]

50 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

I recall a time that British riders were given a reduction in average to encourage declaring a team with a smattering of Brits?

They did and it was only something like 2.5% if i remember, should be reinstated and upped to around 7% if you ask me. 

[Daniel Smith 5,672]

4 hours ago, steve roberts said:

I recall a time that British riders were given a reduction in average to encourage declaring a team with a smattering of Brits?

It still is. All Brits get 2.5%. All Brits graduating from the 'Rising Star' position gets 25%