Guest BilaHora Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Mr Grachan From memory, there was an outcry when the "...tape-touching" regulation was introduced. It was ridiculous. How could you possibly exclude a star rider - the very men the public came to see - from a race just for touching the tapes? It was crazy. How many people think that now? I will tell you what ridiculous ideas are. A ridiculous idea is allowing guest riders. I am sure that baffles the supporters. Rider A is not actually a member of this team, he rides for Team B, but Team A has an injured rider and Rider A is guesting for him. That is ridiculous. A ridiculous idea is allowing a team nine points behind to introduce replacements who score double points. I am sure that baffles the odd newcomer to the sport. A ridiculous idea is having "...bonus points" - what purpose does it serve? The points are included in a averages and then discounted in the Elite League when it comes to team building. Why have them? What purpose do they serve? They are not included in the meeting scores. They are not included in the averages for team building purposes. What purpose do they serve? In comparison to those, I happen to think my idea is eminently sensible. Regards BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) Tape touching is one of the few changes brought in that had a reason and has worked well. Bonus points serve a purpose in that they are there to encourage team riding. Sure, team riding is something of a lost art these days for some reason, but how many of the marvellous displays of this skill would we have missed out on over the years without them, and the fact is they are not something that newcomers have to worry about anyway as they are not a major factor in the match. My mum's been going to speedway for about 55 years and I don't think she's ever bothered with them. Guest riders and tactical rides - I agree. Ridiculous. These are the kind of things that are introduced that would cause speedway to be a laughing stock if people actually knew the sport still existed. Complicated scoring systems like those proposed in this thread would, in my opinion, fall into the catagory of one of the daft ideas constantly being invented by this crazy sport of ours like those mentioned in the second paragraph. Speedway should be kept simple because the four laps of racing is where its appeal lies rather than the elaborate scoring systems that go with that. Adding to that just causes confusion. Edited December 17, 2004 by Grachan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilaHora Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Mr Grachan I actually do not disagree with much of what you write, although I remain firmly attached to my idea. However, with regard to "...bonus points", I think the sole purpose of maintaining bonus points these days is for rider payment rather than to actively encourage team riding. The principal aim of my idea is to lessen the chances of one-sided encounters and, to be honest, I cannot see that one-sided encounters make this sport attractive to the outsider. Furthermore, if your mother has never bothered with bonus points (I think you could be underestimating her), need she bother with a more complicated points allocation to teams? Would the casual supporter really bother with the system I propose until such time as he had become a dedicated supporter. Many sports have changed over the years in similar ways. Rugby has changed its scoring system to encourage more tries to be scored. How many people lined the streets of London to witness the victorious England team after their 2003 World Cup triumph? Cricket has introduced many changes and, although Mr SCB may ridicule cricket, the sport has just received a four year deal with Sky worth circa £220 million and regularly attracts back-page headlines. Regards BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Cricket has introduced many changes and, although Mr SCB may ridicule cricket, the sport has just received a four year deal with Sky worth circa £220 million and regularly attracts back-page headlines. I don't think Sky did it for the point scoring system. They did it because it's cricket it x (I'm sorry, I don't know how many) men vs x men. One throwing a ball at 3 (5?) sticks and another man stopping him. The rest of the men try and catch the ball. Why can't speedway be about 4 men (or women) on 4 bikes racing for 4 laps to come 1st and score 3,2,1 and 0 point (no mention of 6,4,2 point you'll note as thats another sily thing IMO). The score should not and probably is not of relevance to Sky (be it football, cricket, speedway) as they want entertainament at the end of the day. Don't try claiming that the scoring system has meant anything to Sky. I could argue that Sky would have paid £250 million if the point scoring system was better, who knows?! I think the sport is already over complicated, being already complication is NO excuse for making it more so, if anything it's a reason to make it simpler. Scrap double points, guests and the other silly rules. Just answer me this, what is wrong with 2 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for lossing and 1 for the bonus point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 They did it because it's cricket Well Sky certainly didn't want it because of its simplicity. Cricket must surely be the most complicated sport ever devised! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 The principal aim of my idea is to lessen the chances of one-sided encounters and, to be honest, I cannot see that one-sided encounters make this sport attractive to the outsider. Furthermore, if your mother has never bothered with bonus points (I think you could be underestimating her), need she bother with a more complicated points allocation to teams? Would the casual supporter really bother with the system I propose until such time as he had become a dedicated supporter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the way to make the sport attractive is to have quality racing on good tracks and the way to have that is to have good promoters and team managers who get 100% effort from their riders. Giving out points is just another extension of the tactical ride rule, where points are dished out for no extra effort. I know my Mum doesn't do bonus points because, in my younger anoraky days, I told her her programme was wrong because she didn't put in the bonus points and she told me she couldn't be bothered with all that! She just wanted to see good racing and to see Swindon win and do well in the league. The points allocation would effect where the team finishes in the league so she would have to take notice of it. Bonus points can easily be ignored without it affecting one's own interest in the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilaHora Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 (edited) Messrs Grachan and SCB I trust that you will forgive me replying to your points in a single post. Is there anything wrong with a system that allocates two points for a win, one point for a draw and zero points for a loss you ask. No, essentially there is nothing wrong with this system, although you could argue that it does not differentiate between a team scoring twenty points in a defeat and a team scoring forty points in defeat. Under my system there will still only be two points between a winning and losing team so long as the scoreline is reasonably close. The only change is when a one-sided meeting occurs. If, as you correctly state, "...bonus points can be ignored without it affecting one's interest", one really needs to accept that bonus points serve no purpose whatsoever. After all, if you have "...good promoters and team managers who get 100% effort from their riders", then there should be no required inducement to team ride. However, clearly we are not there yet, and, as such, perhaps the added inducement of the points system proposed by myself would serve a purpose. Perhaps we should look at Sky influenced changes in the sport as it is. Speedway, like both rugby codes signed to Sky, has decided that in a league competition the team finishing atop the league at the end of the season is not necessarily the champions. No, they are seeded through to a "...grand final" where they will meet one of the four teams that finished below them. Thus, like both codes of rugby, the champions could finish second, third, fourth or even fifth in the league. I have no problem with an additional tournament comprising the top four or five teams in the league, but surely, to be serious, the champions should be the team that is top of the league at the end of the season. Regards BilaHora Edited December 18, 2004 by BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 BilaHora "one really needs to accept that bonus points serve no purpose whatsoever" There is another way of looking at it. Surely one reason bonus points are awarded is to prevent riders from the same team racing each other? Paying a rider the same for 2nd (or 3rd) behind a team mate should mean he will settle for that place for the sake of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I think we're confussing bonus point for a rider and bonus point for a team here. Rider bonus point are not relevant for the reason Grachan explained. statos use bonus points when working out averages and riders/promoters use it to work out what they're paid but they have no effect on the team and so the fans don't need to worry about them. Bonus point for the aggregate win, are relevant to the team and the fans as it may (and does) change league results. BilaHora, A fair answer, one to which I guess there is not real answer, yes, a team that scores 44 (50ish these days with TR's I guess) and losses are not being oticed, no more so than a team that scores 15, 18 or 30 (or even 0!). the only answer I can give is I have been to Arena Essex and seen my team lose 46-44 yet go through tot he next round of the KoC and I have been to Arena Essex and seen my team lose 68-22(ish) and get no league points. Both times I drop home for 3 hours feeling terrible. So what if my team had won that first time, did it matter? No, not at all, as long as they stayed within 5 points we went through in the cup. To me, it's a win, draw or loss, nothing more or less and I personally hate people who say, "well we only lost by a point", as at the end of the day, the team lost. I'm not saying thats right and you may be right with your point scoring system btu what happens if a team is set for so many points and are assured of a point but a bit more work MIGHT just get them the win? Will they accept the already given points and the easy ride? Maybe, where as these days the team HAS to go for the win or get nothing. It could be self defeating. Prehaps the answer is to try it in the Premier Trophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilaHora Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 Mr SCB That sounds perfectly fair and sensible. A trial period in a lesser competition to see if the idea works in practice. In all my posts, if I have referenced "...bonus points" it has been in the context of bonus points allocated to riders finishing in a points-scoring position behind a team mate. I understand fully that bonus points are critical in determining payment to riders, however, since the Elite League no longer counts bonus points in their averages for team building purposes, you have to question the wisdom of retaining them. After all, you could still pay the riders as currently through the provisions of their contracts without allocating meaningless bonus points. At the end of the day, this is just my opinion on the matter. If we want to keep bonus points, then at least make some use of them. Regards BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 That sounds perfectly fair and sensible. A trial period in a lesser competition to see if the idea works in practice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cough cough... tactical rides..... cough... Premier League KO Cup.. cough cough. Bilahora, I agree with you on the earlier post regarding the Play-offs. I think the team that wins the league table should be league champ. End of story. One thing I will say about them, though, is that they now have Play-offs in football, rugby and no doubt plenty of other sports too, so at least they are something that is occuring in sport in general rather than being another of Speedway's unique daft little ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilaHora Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 Mr Grachan As I have stated, several other sports have had "play-offs" introduced, most notably both rugby codes signed to Sky. However, football is a little different, in that the title is lifted by the club finishing atop the league, with the play-offs only used to determine the final promotion place. I feel, personally, that the idea of the champions being decided via play-offs is entirely a Sky influenced decision, possibly influenced by team sports across the Atlantic. Regards BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 If we want to keep bonus points, then at least make some use of them. I would actually consider radically changing the whole scoring system to eliminate the rationale for having bonus points in the first place. I've long thought that riders should only be awarded points for each opposition rider they finish ahead of. This would not only remove the need for bonus points, but it would stop the nonsense of teams being able to score points without actually beating a member of the opposition. Furthermore, assuming that we have to keep the ridiculous tactical ride system, it would make it more credible as teams would only get double points for each opponent beaten. For example: 5-1 would become 4-0 4-2 would become 3-1 3-3 would become 2-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Now that I agree with! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackofdiamonds Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Not sure if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but before anything else is considered, why not use the cycle speedway points system of 4-3-2-1, An incentive to finish, and to fight for third place, which was my lot in life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 J of D I had heard you were a bit if a bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BilaHora Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Mr Meynell A very interesting suggestion. How do you see an average system being worked under this formula, since surely the current average structure would have to be amended? Regards BilaHora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 How do you see an average system being worked under this formula, since surely the current average structure would have to be amended? I guess you mean with respect to basing averages on four rides and a 12.00 maximum? Of course, if you continued to base averages on four rides with the new system, the maximum average would then only be 8.00 (4 x 2.00) If you wanted to maintain historical continuity, I suppose you could divide race points by rides and then multiply by six, but this wouldn't be particularly meaningful (except to compare averages with those from the past). However, the way averages are currently calculated isn't particularly meaningful either, especially when certain riders regularly score more than 12 points a meeting. I have long thought that riders' averages should be based on points-per-ride (maximum average of 3.00 with the current system), which would be far more meaningful than a contrived points-per-match figure. It would also break the link in some peoples' minds between the points limit and match scores which are not directly related. Another way might be to express rider abilities in percentage terms, so a 6.00-point rider (current system) would be 50% and a 9.00-point rider would be 75% and so on.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin king Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 (edited) Mr SCB I imagine that everyone goes home slightly happier if they have seen a great meeting and a great meeting generally requires a reasonably close scoreline. The old saying was "happiness is 40:38" not "happiness is 65:13". What I am suggesting, as a point for discussion, is creating an incentive for the away team to produce closer results. I think it deserves a little more credit that you extend. Regards BilaHora <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 40 - 38 means I go home without a voice generally. Edited January 31, 2005 by spin king Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.