dontforgetthefueltapsbruv

A severely flawed plan IMO - doesnt solve the doubling up problem and just makes manipulation by top flight clubs making changes more of a possibility

All sorts of relatively simple solutions but out of the grasp of those making the decisions I'd expect - also too many struggle with the most simplistic of calculations for the current averages as it is!!

It is a different issue because the conversion example you used isnt the regulatory rate - until it is then it is a different issue I did say that I agreed the ratio you stated was more realistic in terms of the real world difference and therefore would be a better position to use I also believe it would be relatively straightforward to use that realistic conversion rate as well as using results from both leagues for those doubling up so that every rider only ever has one average (at least for team building/changes purposes)

I tend to agree but I think you need to find some way of building in a fair and realistic differential

That's a different issue - ie is the conversion rate correct I'd say the figures you quote are quite possibly a more accurate reflection if how things should be rather than the actual conversion in the regs It surely wouldn't be too hard to work out an average average using performances from both leagues where applicable

But then you would have the like of Doyle Fricke and Lambert all assessed at 12 for team building when quite obviously Doyle is head and shoulders above

Could depend also whether who ever made the decision went to the Ian Thomas/John Berry school of measurement

But they would both be about 70 miles apart I thought the distance quoted was 35 miles where a promotion can claim 'protection of interests' and object to another club (full stop and not just sharing a race night)

Isnt it just because he is a pace or two in front of the others? Get some perspective people!

Was a generic comment and not aimed at you specifically Les - apologies if it came across that way I've lost count of the number of posts around heat 15 not being included/45 points needed to draw so should be limit etc

Agree but I cant see any way Iversens half dozen or so meetings put him at No3 !!

That's exactly what was predicted when certain team threads were started. Thankfully another thread by a real home fan was started in each case

Damn auto correct ! Although perhaps my phone knew where I thought Jack could stick it

Boots in Meadowhall will need to stick up on dummies then

Heat 15 is still included- you just need to be able to understand maths at a slightly higher level than a primary school starter to work it out

I every match ended in a draw every team would finish under 42 points total.....

The reg was that the rider at some point had to have achieved an average in excess of 4.50 in the Championship not that they had to be above that when signing. The PL min was then 3 even if the conversion put the rider below that Drew did that and therefore would qualify if he and a club thought it right (assuming the regs are not changed)

The top point makes sense if you are trying to strengthen the product Why 45 - see above but it could be anything higher than the 42.50 to achieve that depending in how quickly you want to try to do it Points to get a draw irrelevant to the average of a team required to achieve that same draw. The calculation for CMA doesn't work that way

The Swindon team that finished 2019 wasnt built to the 42.50 limit It involved mid season changes bringing in perceived better riders at the right time to replace under performing riders before their averages dropped whilst the others were increasing their averages If EVERY declaration meant having to return to the 42.50 limit regardless of whether it was a single, double or more change switch then you point would ring true

When gradings are discussed 'the rules' are usually if you have an A you cant have a B or perhaps if you did you could only then have 1 or 2 C

I agree - I was just bringing up the debate because so many think gradings would be better IMO they would be much worse in terms of the aim for equalization

There are often call for gradings rather than averages to be used. It would be interesting for someone to put together 7 new teams on that basis to see how it could work in practice The top 3 would be A, the next section B, the next 2 sections C and the bottom 2 D.....

I like the principle but the practicalities as others have pointed out are something different in terms of finding the additional star riders at an affordable cost I would say that it is fine to retain the same 7 but only so long as it is the same 7 that started the season So often teams are changed to take advantage of the cut off date average changes meaning teams are actually effectively over the limit which skews the figures

How could his average have been a points liability when he came in on a 2!! The fact it went immediately to nearly 5 just meant down to him Sheffield could effectively build the rest of the team to be 3 points over the limit Without him on a 2 the team overall wouldve been weaker and other riders brought in wouldn't have been accommodated. His 'reward' for those others still not being able to out strip his performances in the 1-5 despite them being at reserve was to be dropped instead of them Yes a victim of the points limit system but there were other choices and IMO he should remember that should Sheffield make him an offer

Certainly some talent there and plenty of room for improvement in his average if he is committed and has suitably maintained equipment to back it up for a whole season