Speedway Star - Point Of View

[tigerowl]

Get racing like heat 15 at Owlerton on Thursday and I suspect that no-one would care what is going on. It was brilliant.

 

I find that there a huge number of people who are critical of the sport in its present form but few (if any) are able to come with something different. Speedway is all about 4 blokes on bikes without brakes and you can't change it that much. That's why its been the same for decades, not because the BSPA are a set of idiots.

 

I remain absolutely unconvinced, though, that every effort is made to attract and retain paying customers. Everything should be based upon what they want, not what anyone else wants.

 

As an example, there has been an enormous amount of criticism of Leicester's track over the last few years, yet the recent Somerset meeting showed that the problem certainly isn't the much maligned shape. You have to ask yourself why, if it was as good as reported, it hasn't been like that for the past 3 seasons.

 

Yes, it was a good race and a good meeting. Which proves the point that several people have made on the thread. The fact is that speedway is four riders racing on an enclosed track on 500cc bikes with no brakes and that is the product that should be promoted. Tinkering with rules so that the sport loses credibility, messing about with the minutiae of averages so that fans lose their favourite rider needlessly, only serves to turn people away.

[ABS]

Only one team can be Champions, so why not allow them to keep the same team if they wish, with their cumulative average being the figure that all teams can build to for the following season? We've gone down the path of diluting the product and the result of this can be seen at the turnstiles.

[oldace]

Only one team can be Champions, so why not allow them to keep the same team if they wish, with their cumulative average being the figure that all teams can build to for the following season? We've gone down the path of diluting the product and the result of this can be seen at the turnstiles.

 

With the riders coming from where? The champions will likely average around 46 to 48 with the poorest teams 36 to 38 so where are these poorer teams going to get riders if no teams have to release any.

 

And fans wonder why promoters dont listen to them with half baked suggestions like that one

Edited July 8, 2013 by Oldace

[ABS]

With the riders coming from where? The champions will likely average around 46 to 48 with the poorest teams 36 to 38 so where are these poorer teams going to get riders if no teams have to release any.

 

And fans wonder why promoters dont listen to them with half baked suggestions like that one

 

Nothing half-baked, as you put, it at all. Instead of employing 2nd rate foreign riders because of the average restrictions, they would be able to go out and obtain better options. These do exist, or don't you look at the strength of teams in Poland and Sweden.

 

The idea is to maintain continuity, so what's half-baked about that, oh wise one?

[oldace]

Nothing half-baked, as you put, it at all. Instead of employing 2nd rate foreign riders because of the average restrictions, they would be able to go out and obtain better options. These do exist, or don't you look at the strength of teams in Poland and Sweden.

 

The idea is to maintain continuity, so what's half-baked about that, oh wise one?

 

It would end up with the strong getting stronger and the weak going out of business.

 

If the amount of teams remains the same the limit should be 42.5, a small increase if a team is lost and a small deduction if a team comes in. Maintain that for a few years and thats how to get continuity

[ABS]

It would end up with the strong getting stronger and the weak going out of business.

 

If the amount of teams remains the same the limit should be 42.5, a small increase if a team is lost and a small deduction if a team comes in. Maintain that for a few years and thats how to get continuity

 

No it wouldn't. The strong would remain at a level and the weak, as you put it, get the opportunity to build up the the level of the strongest from the previous year. Economics will kick in and teams will find their levels.

 

The original question was about continuity and continuously having to break up teams for the sake of maintaining an artificially low average and I believe my suggestion would solve the perennial problem.

[oldace]

No it wouldn't. The strong would remain at a level and the weak, as you put it, get the opportunity to build up the the level of the strongest from the previous year. Economics will kick in and teams will find their levels.

 

The original question was about continuity and continuously having to break up teams for the sake of maintaining an artificially low average and I believe my suggestion would solve the perennial problem.

 

42.5 wouldn't be artificially low, it is 0.5 above the equilibrium. Every rider who rode one season could be accommodated somewhere the next season, no one gets forced out. Old riders retire, quit etc and new ones step up from the lower leagues.

 

It is the artificially low sub 40 limits that lead to the diluting of rider strength that exists today

Edited July 8, 2013 by Oldace

[New Science]

Only one team can be Champions, so why not allow them to keep the same team if they wish, with their cumulative average being the figure that all teams can build to for the following season? We've gone down the path of diluting the product and the result of this can be seen at the turnstiles.

If the 1998 Ipswich team had been allowed to stay together (Rickardsson,Gollob,Nicholls,Louis etc)they would have been untouchable for at least 5 years.The points limit would have been over 50.The best thing about speedway is that no one team dominates and the honours are shared around.Keeping league winning sides together would create the equivalent of footballs Premier League.

[spin king]

Some really interesting points coming out, and the future of the sport is something that I have given some serious thought.this season, and I have to say that the sport is on its arse at the moment.

 

For as many seasons that care to remember Promoter have tinkered with rules and regulations of the sports to the point where even the Promoters themselves don't understand the rules for instance Sheffield, Glasgow and Scunthorpe been caught up in the assessed riders problems where they have been forced to wait to make changes to their teams. So if the people that are running the show don't understand the rules what chance have the present fans or any new fans going to understand it.

 

The League scoring system is a sporting joke, sport is a contest where you aim is to win, so why do we reward a team that has lost (1 point to an away team that loses by 6 or less), make it simple 3 points for a win, 2 points for an away draw, 1 point for a home draw, then if Promoters want to keep a meeting alive then bring back the bonus point for the aggregate score.

 

And if you want be revolutionary then what about this idea, have further heat 16 where by you have a nominated rider from each race off for a further bonus point, would give extra value to supporters and not much more cost to Promoters. If the meeting is cancelled before heat 16 both teams share the point.

 

All simple and easy for anyone to understand, and at not much cost to the Promoters.

 

The tactical ride is all wrong, how can you award more points to a rider for 2nd than one that comes 1st,is not sport about been rewarded for winning , bring back the tactical substitute rule whereby you can bring in a replacement rider when you are 6 or more points behind.

 

The rolling averages are a nightmare, fans have no way of been able to follow them, why does it have to be 38 matches, who wants to know what sort of form a rider had over two seasons ago, revert back to the old style averages which was more about current form..

 

Forums and social networking, most Promoters hate them, but it is a way of keeping in touch with there supporters who are their customers, if you have a view that is different to theirs and you are viewed as an enemy rather than someone who is passionate about your team at Sheffield we have been called Keyboard Warriors sometimes, and I have seen it happen at other clubs as well. Too many Promoters are quick to accept praise but don't ;like criticism no matter how constructive you are, they really need to listen to fans.

 

Why not have an elected supporters representative for each club that pass onto clubs what the fans think and their views and what the fans really want. maybe invite them to talk at the Annual Conference, and find out what the fans really want.

 

The next time you are at a speedway meeting, take a look around and count how many fans are under the age of under 21, I bet you won't need to use you any more than the fingers on your hands. The sport needs some serious marketing to attract younger fans, a speedway crowd feels like a Old Folks outing the coast, Speedway is a sport that is as exciting as it can get go out Promote the sport in schools.a few years ago Glasgow got involved in educational centre with schools, why not try that again.

 

End of the day, the sport has over complicated its self and basically needs to dumb itself down and make it easy to understand, and some Promoters need to stop trying to bend the rules, but more importantly they need to listen to their customers. . .

[The White Knight]

Well said Spin King.

 

I hope the Promoters take the advice from your last sentence........................................

[Mixy230]

The Sport can be good/great! but not all the time.

 

But the promoters/ owners need to make every meeting an event! not just 15 races! (There is no guarentee that there will be any good races)

 

Kids clubs giving away stickers, clip boards with pre meeting build up. You buy in to get sport loyalty at a young age!!! Prizes of time /pit walks/ presenting a trophy for rider of the day costs next to nothing!

an MC who can speak with enthusiasm, get in amongst the crowd do not stand in the middle all the time. (Approach local college, must be media students willing to take on a promotional challenge)

 

I am still thinking there is a lack of promotional enthusiasm (Whish I find hard to believe as its there business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

Good luck Speedway

 

M

[Cockney Rebel]

Moxey63 you make some good points in your post particularly about the fans who no longer attend are not going so they can't tell us why they're not going. But yourself and Oldace who both no longer go haven't said exactly why you stopped going, all we've got is a vague "I was fed up with what was on offer", What was it you were fed up with, the racing, the lack of world class riders, the food, the music, tactical rides? It would help if you were more specific. I'm not connected to the sport in any way so can't do anything about it but there just may be some promoters reading this who might think "ahh so that's what they didn't like" and it might just give them food for thought. We read so many different opinions on here that it's difficult to know why the decline started. Some people say the racing isn't good enough some moan about the delays others complain about the cost some don't like the music played but most of these are just personal things. When I go Speedway it's for the racing I don't really care what the food is like or the type of music that's played. I'm sure most fans are like that so what was it that made you stop going?

[Halifaxtiger]

If the 1998 Ipswich team had been allowed to stay together (Rickardsson,Gollob,Nicholls,Louis etc)they would have been untouchable for at least 5 years.The points limit would have been over 50.The best thing about speedway is that no one team dominates and the honours are shared around.Keeping league winning sides together would create the equivalent of footballs Premier League.

 

Quite. On a free for all, wealthy clubs dominate and the others, unable to keep up, go into a downward spiral towards extinction.

 

I agree with your reasoning in that everyone gets a fair chance. Not only that, clubs that are financially successful off track can use their funds to build better teams on track.

 

The price you pay is that teams are split up but, to me, its far better than the alternative.

 

Some really interesting points coming out, and the future of the sport is something that I have given some serious thought.this season, and I have to say that the sport is on its arse at the moment.

 

For as many seasons that care to remember Promoter have tinkered with rules and regulations of the sports to the point where even the Promoters themselves don't understand the rules for instance Sheffield, Glasgow and Scunthorpe been caught up in the assessed riders problems where they have been forced to wait to make changes to their teams. So if the people that are running the show don't understand the rules what chance have the present fans or any new fans going to understand it.

 

The League scoring system is a sporting joke, sport is a contest where you aim is to win, so why do we reward a team that has lost (1 point to an away team that loses by 6 or less), make it simple 3 points for a win, 2 points for an away draw, 1 point for a home draw, then if Promoters want to keep a meeting alive then bring back the bonus point for the aggregate score.

 

And if you want be revolutionary then what about this idea, have further heat 16 where by you have a nominated rider from each race off for a further bonus point, would give extra value to supporters and not much more cost to Promoters. If the meeting is cancelled before heat 16 both teams share the point.

 

All simple and easy for anyone to understand, and at not much cost to the Promoters.

 

The tactical ride is all wrong, how can you award more points to a rider for 2nd than one that comes 1st,is not sport about been rewarded for winning , bring back the tactical substitute rule whereby you can bring in a replacement rider when you are 6 or more points behind.

 

The rolling averages are a nightmare, fans have no way of been able to follow them, why does it have to be 38 matches, who wants to know what sort of form a rider had over two seasons ago, revert back to the old style averages which was more about current form..

 

Forums and social networking, most Promoters hate them, but it is a way of keeping in touch with there supporters who are their customers, if you have a view that is different to theirs and you are viewed as an enemy rather than someone who is passionate about your team at Sheffield we have been called Keyboard Warriors sometimes, and I have seen it happen at other clubs as well. Too many Promoters are quick to accept praise but don't ;like criticism no matter how constructive you are, they really need to listen to fans.

 

Why not have an elected supporters representative for each club that pass onto clubs what the fans think and their views and what the fans really want. maybe invite them to talk at the Annual Conference, and find out what the fans really want.

 

The next time you are at a speedway meeting, take a look around and count how many fans are under the age of under 21, I bet you won't need to use you any more than the fingers on your hands. The sport needs some serious marketing to attract younger fans, a speedway crowd feels like a Old Folks outing the coast, Speedway is a sport that is as exciting as it can get go out Promote the sport in schools.a few years ago Glasgow got involved in educational centre with schools, why not try that again.

 

End of the day, the sport has over complicated its self and basically needs to dumb itself down and make it easy to understand, and some Promoters need to stop trying to bend the rules, but more importantly they need to listen to their customers. . .

 

I thought the points scoring system was ridiculous when they brought it in but not any more. It keeps more meetings alive than the old bonus point system without a doubt.

 

Agree with tactical rides. The scoring is virtually the same as tactical substitutes but the money paid is massively less. As an example, a team are to put out no 2 and no 7 in heat, both on £40 a point. Result 1-5. Cost £40. Tactical subs come out, no 1 and no 3, both on £70 a point. Result 5-1. Cost £420. One heat additional cost £380 - that's terrifying.

 

I still don't understand rolling averages, so I can't comment on it. What is daft is that qualification for the Fours is based on them.

 

Absolutely spot on about social net working.

 

I still maintain that speedway is about four blokes on bikes without brakes and just don't get these who don't go any more because of tactical rides, points limits or any other rule.

 

Setting tracks up to suit paying customers rather than paid riders to me would be a start.

[The White Knight]

Quite. On a free for all, wealthy clubs dominate and the others, unable to keep up, go into a downward spiral towards extinction.

 

I agree with your reasoning in that everyone gets a fair chance. Not only that, clubs that are financially successful off track can use their funds to build better teams on track.

 

The price you pay is that teams are split up but, to me, its far better than the alternative.

 

 

 

I thought the points scoring system was ridiculous when they brought it in but not any more.

than the old bonus point system without a doubt.

 

Agree with tactical rides. The scoring is virtually the same as tactical substitutes but the money paid is massively less. As an example, a team are to put out no 2 and no 7 in heat, both on £40 a point. Result 1-5. Cost £40. Tactical subs come out, no 1 and no 3, both on £70 a point. Result 5-1. Cost £420. One heat additional cost £380 - that's terrifying.

 

I still don't understand rolling averages, so I can't comment on it. What is daft is that qualification for the Fours is based on them.

 

Absolutely spot on about social net working.

 

I still maintain that speedway is about four blokes on bikes without brakes and just don't get these who don't go any more because of tactical rides, points limits or any other rule.

 

Setting tracks up to suit paying customers rather than paid riders to me would be a start.

 

Oh dear HT - you were doing so well until wrote THAT!!! :angry:

 

"Keeps more Meetings alive" in a CONTRIVED way you mean.

 

(If you don't like the word CONTRIVED you could substitute FIDDLED, CONNED, ROBBED OR CHEATED the Supporters of one Club or the other in the Meeting). :mad:

Edited July 8, 2013 by The White Knight

[SCB]

A points limit of 38 or 48 wouldn't make one iota of difference to attendance figures.

[Backless]

 

 

Oh dear HT - you were doing so well until wrote THAT!!! :angry:

 

"Keeps more Meetings alive" in a CONTRIVED way you mean.

 

(If you don't like the word CONTRIVED you could substitute FIDDLED, CONNED, ROBBED OR CHEATED the Supporters of one Club or the other in the Meeting). :mad:

 

So blinkered you don't even know what you're disagreeing with.

 

The League Points system - ripped to shreds by the know it all's on here - is the best thing to have been brought in in the last 25 years.

 

To address the rules that you're harping on about, it's been pointed out earlier in an example that tac subs would be a drain to the sum of £380 per meeting. In practice it would probably be a lot more - the pay rates quoted are a bit too optimistic - and in the Elite League the cost difference would be phenomenal.

 

Any suggestions as to where that sort of money might be found?

 

As for Rolling Averages, how more simplistic does it have to be? Admittedly when it was brought in, based on 38 matches, it was taking in too many - so now the matches included are being reduced. Get it down to @ 24 and, quite staggeringly, a riders average will be based on his last 24 matches.

 

Time for another Golden Wedding Anniversary record request… here's the latest 78 rpm platter from that young crooner, Matt Monroe…

[Halifaxtiger]

 

 

Oh dear HT - you were doing so well until wrote THAT!!! :angry:

 

"Keeps more Meetings alive" in a CONTRIVED way you mean.

 

(If you don't like the word CONTRIVED you could substitute FIDDLED, CONNED, ROBBED OR CHEATED the Supporters of one Club or the other in the Meeting). :mad:

 

My view is (and will remain)that I will support anything that makes our sport more attractive to paying customers and if that involves contriving matters (your word, not mine) so be it.

 

There are few more races in the sport that are more potentially exciting than last heat deciders for the match points. What that rule change does is substantially increase that possibility.

 

As an example, the Somerset supporters at Rye House last Saturday week went nuts when their team got a 5-1 in the last heat and thereby gained a point. Without the scoring system, the match would have been dead about heat 10.

[BWitcher]

 

 

My view is (and will remain)that I will support anything that makes our sport more attractive to paying customers and if that involves contriving matters (your word, not mine) so be it.

 

There are few more races in the sport that are more potentially exciting than last heat deciders for the match points. What that rule change does is substantially increase that possibility.

 

As an example, the Somerset supporters at Rye House last Saturday week went nuts when their team got a 5-1 in the last heat and thereby gained a point. Without the scoring system, the match would have been dead about heat 10.

 

Spot on. The same happened last night with Bombers last lap pass of Smolinski.

 

We keep hearing talk of how things are 'too complicated' etc etc and it keeps fans away. Its got absolutely nothing to do with that at all. There are far more complicated sports. Besides, new fans, who are the ones you are trying to attract will know nothing and not be interested in 'rolling averages' etc initially. It's only once they've taken an interest in the product will they start investigating further.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear HT - you were doing so well until wrote THAT!!! :angry:

 

"Keeps more Meetings alive" in a CONTRIVED way you mean.

 

(If you don't like the word CONTRIVED you could substitute FIDDLED, CONNED, ROBBED OR CHEATED the Supporters of one Club or the other in the Meeting). :mad:

 

There is absolutely nothing 'contrived/fiddled/manipulated' about the scoring system.

[arthur cross]

Two simple tweaks of what's currently happening which I reckon are worth considering ...

 

Firstly, most supporters can tolerate reasonable delays for medical matters but they don't like waiting around when the delay's less obvious and a prime case of that is when the referee agrees to give "extra time for a rider in 2 races in a row" without anyone knowing exactly how much extra time that means.

 

Simple solution ... as soon as it's clear there's a "2 in a row" situation, the referee declares "4 minutes" instead of "2 minutes" (maybe with a different-sounding klaxon, buzzer or bell) and then there's no argument about how much extra time is being given ... reminders at 2-minutes, 1-minute and 30-seconds can still be announced as usual.

 

Whether "4 minutes" could also be used for the re-run of a heat that's just had a pile-up wrecking a fair bit of machinery is more debatable but that's another situation where delays can start feeling as if they're delays just for the sake of it.

 

Second tweak involves removing the need for the wretched tactical ride (or tactical substitute or anything else that rewards earlier mediocrity) by adding two extra levels to the existing levels of league-points.

 

Remember, at the moment, it's as follows ...

Home - 3 league points if winning by 7 or more, 2 league points for a smaller win, 1 league point for a draw

Away - 4 league points if winning by 7 or more, 3 league points for a smaller win, 2 league points for a draw, 1 league point for losing by 6 or less

 

If you get rid of tactical rides, you're back to a basic 90-points up for grabs over 15 heats (unless there are any heats with 2 or fewer finishers) instead of anything between 90 & 96 currently ending up on the scoreboard ... now, consider the following structure for league points with no tactical rides allowed ...

 

Home - 5 league points for winning by 17 or more, 4 league points if winning by 9-to-16, 3 league points for a smaller win, 2 league points for a draw, 1 league point for losing by 8 or less, nothing for a heavier defeat

 

Away - 6 league points for winning by 17 or more, 5 league points if winning by 9-to-16, 4 league points for a smaller win, 3 league points for a draw, 2 league points for losing by 8 or less, 1 league point for losing by 9-to-16, nothing for a heavier defeat

 

Have a think about what you reckon are the plus-points and minus-points of that system ...essentially, it's turning the current 4 levels of the league-points into a 6-level system and while some supporters still prefer the bonus-point aggregate, I'd reckon a majority prefer the 4-level system now that they've had a few years to get used to it and so it shouldn't be too big a leap to get used to the 6-level system.

 

Clearly it adds some extra columns to a league table if you're going to show all the columns for the various margins (sorry about that Manchester Paul whose tables can be very useful for detailed analysis) but arguably, it's easier for the media to simply print one column each for wins, draws and losses followed by a points-column that can't be immediately calculated from the earlier columns (already happens in much of rugby union and lower levels of rugby league).

 

Barring chaotic scenes in any heat, it makes 54-points in a meeting the normal target for either side claiming maximum league points (probably meaning more incentive for a comfortably-winning home side to field their top riders in heat 15) while setting struggling away teams a normal target of 37-points to achieve any league points at all ... frankly, if you can't cobble together 37 in an away meeting (or 41 at home), you don't deserve anything.

 

It also keeps more teams in the play-off hunt with a few meetings to go because they've still got a chance to zoom up the table with a 5-league-points home-win or 6-league-points away-win.

 

Best of all it's goodbye to speedway's most ludicrous rule, namely the tactical ride that rewards a team with double the race-points for something that rider was going to be doing anyway ... yes, there's the occasional worthwhile fuss when a home reserve beats an away tactical number-1 (Paul Starke on his Berwick debut beating Leicester's Kauko Nieminen being a prime example this season) but that's not enough to make up for all the artificial results created by tactical rides or the general disbelief of newcomers that it's sometimes well worth a team doing badly in one race so they can rattle up double-points from their superstar in the next race.

 

Thanks for reading all of this ... what do you think ?

Edited July 9, 2013 by arthur cross

[BWitcher]

What you say makes a hell of a lot of sense. I wouldn't have anything at all against such a system being used.

 

It eliminates tactical rides and simply rewards teams for performance. There is no 'contriving' results involved. The better you do, the more league pts you earn.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2013 by BWitcher