Swindon 2017

[SteveLyric2]

But the 'starter' average is just that - a 50 point team building average. It won't apply once new individual and team averages come into effect.

 

Assuming the new team average (for redeclarations) is 42 or thereabouts, then taking Poole as an example their current 1-7 is totalling around 45 points, (more if Newman is included in place of Kerr and once 4H/4A are completed)), so any changes other than a single like-for-like change would mean Poole having to lose at least 3 points before they start!!

Edited April 18, 2017 by Skidder1

[SCB]

But the 'starter' average is just that - a 50 point team building average. It won't apply once new individual and team averages come into effect.

 

Assuming the new team average (for redeclarations) is 42 or thereabouts, then taking Poole as an example their current 1-7 is totalling around 45 points, (more if Newman is included in place of Kerr and once 4H/4A are completed)), so any changes other than a single like-for-like change would mean Poole having to lose at least 3 points before they start!!

You can't use "Pooles 45" because there will be teams averaging 39! You have to use 42. somewhere between 1.2 and 1.25 is about right. Most certainly not last season final average.

[Najjer]

But the 'starter' average is just that - a 50 point team building average. It won't apply once new individual and team averages come into effect.

 

Assuming the new team average (for redeclarations) is 42 or thereabouts, then taking Poole as an example their current 1-7 is totalling around 45 points, (more if Newman is included in place of Kerr and once 4H/4A are completed)), so any changes other than a single like-for-like change would mean Poole having to lose at least 3 points before they start!!

 

That's how it should be - a team 3 points over the 'average' total shouldn't be able to make changes unless it's like for like anyway.

[SteveLyric2]

I'm not disagreeing Najjer - only using Poole as an example 'cos theirs are the on ly current averages I've looked at.

 

I think the BSPA person responsible for setting the new team average (as stated by Colin Pratt in the Star 2 weeks ago!) will probably take the average of all the 8 Premiership teams' current team averages once the 4Home/4Away have been ridden, ie taking the actual averages of the teams using this season's race format.

 

Then it'll just be a matter of clarifying what averages any 'unused' riders will come in on. We already know that 'new' foreign riders will be assessed on a grading dependant on what level they have ridden in abroad.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Skidder1

[MattK]

Don't the regulations already state the points limit is 42 for re-declarations after the new averages?

[waiheke1]

I'm not disagreeing Najjer - only using Poole as an example 'cos theirs are the on ly current averages I've looked at.

 

I think the BSPA person responsible for setting the new team average (as stated by Colin Pratt in the Star 2 weeks ago!) will probably take the average of all the 8 Premiership teams' current team averages once the 4Home/4Away have been ridden, ie taking the actual averages of the teams using this season's race format.

 

Then it'll just be a matter of clarifying what averages any 'unused' riders will come in on. We already know that 'new' foreign riders will be assessed on a grading dependant on what level they have ridden in abroad.

Why wait? We already know the average across the teams will sit somewhere between 41 and 42. That's why it is so ludicrous that the rules weren't already set in place as to what multiplier "new" riders would come in on, but 1.2 or 1.25 are the only sensible figures.

[Grachan]

We will know if they've cocked up the points limit/averages if teams suddenly start 'like for like' strengthening up as soon as the new figures are released.

[arnieg]

Why wait? We already know the average across the teams will sit somewhere between 41 and 42. That's why it is so ludicrous that the rules weren't already set in place as to what multiplier "new" riders would come in on, but 1.2 or 1.25 are the only sensible figures.

1.20 looks about right to me.

 

BUT what's shocking is the BSPA still haven't made up their mind about this, or appeared to have considered other unintended consequences. (For example could Jason Doyle get an r/r ride for Adam Ellis because Ellis will still be on old average while Nick Morris - despite his good form - could drop below Ellis' average)

[A ORLOV]

1.20 looks about right to me.

 

BUT what's shocking is the BSPA still haven't made up their mind about this, or appeared to have considered other unintended consequences. (For example could Jason Doyle get an r/r ride for Adam Ellis because Ellis will still be on old average while Nick Morris - despite his good form - could drop below Ellis' average)

Shoosh, don't let them know about that possibility

[SteveLyric2]

Don't the regulations already state the points limit is 42 for re-declarations after the new averages?

Yes 42 points is mentioned in the Team Composition section of the rules - which begs the question what was Colin Pratt referring to in the Star?? (maybe its just senility setting in??)

 

It also states that if a team wishes to re-declare, then any rider who has not completed the 4H/4A can have their CMA re-assessed based on actual meetings ridden to date.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Skidder1

[MattK]

1.20 looks about right to me.

 

BUT what's shocking is the BSPA still haven't made up their mind about this, or appeared to have considered other unintended consequences. (For example could Jason Doyle get an r/r ride for Adam Ellis because Ellis will still be on old average while Nick Morris - despite his good form - could drop below Ellis' average)

 

Actually, it is likely to be the opposite. Bellego (9.00) is averaging higher than Ellis and if BDW continues his recent run of good form we could end up with Ellis as fifth in the averages.

Yes 42 points is mentioned in the Team Composition section of the rules - which begs the question what was Colin Pratt referring to in the Star?? (maybe its just senility setting in??)

 

Unsurprisingly, the regulations are unclear. The 42 point rules doesn't explicitly mention which league it is applicable too, so I am assuming it is the points limit for both leagues?

[waiheke1]

Yes 42 points is mentioned in the Team Composition section of the rules - which begs the question what was Colin Pratt referring to in the Star?? (maybe its just senility setting in??)

 

It also states that if a team wishes to re-declare, then any rider who has not completed the 4H/4A can have their CMA re-assessed based on actual meetings ridden to date.

they "can" have their average re-assessed? so they could choose not to, and therefore be able do a like for like swap on their "old" average? if the rest of the team have new averages, what multiplier would a "like for like" rider replacing a rider without a new CMA come in on. 1, 1.2 or 1.4?

i can see a lot of teams getting to the 4/3 or 3/4 matches completed mark, and then working out if the best way to make changes is like or like on old averages, or wait for new averages then make changes to build up to 42. for example, for wolves if Sronicki keeps averaging 3, he may be worth keeping as you wont get a better 3 pointer, and therefore rather than "like fr like" swapping him out, they can move him to reserve and upgrade Greaves.

the whole thing has been horribly thought out and communicated...

[A ORLOV]

they "can" have their average re-assessed? so they could choose not to, and therefore be able do a like for like swap on their "old" average? if the rest of the team have new averages, what multiplier would a "like for like" rider replacing a rider without a new CMA come in on. 1, 1.2 or 1.4?

i can see a lot of teams getting to the 4/3 or 3/4 matches completed mark, and then working out if the best way to make changes is like or like on old averages, or wait for new averages then make changes to build up to 42. for example, for wolves if Sronicki keeps averaging 3, he may be worth keeping as you wont get a better 3 pointer, and therefore rather than "like fr like" swapping him out, they can move him to reserve and upgrade Greaves.

the whole thing has been horribly thought out and communicated...

They are probably making it up as they go along as each error they have made comes to light.

[hyabb17]

The biggest error is giving a rider a average he can't achieve........

[waiheke1]

The biggest error is giving a rider a average he can't achieve........

I think that is way down the list of errors, in fact I don't see that as an issue at all. Teams built to 50 knowing tgat on average they would drop 8.5 points when the averages came out. Riders like Doyle will drop a smaller percentage than many other riders.

[hyabb17]

Doyley is currently down 5 points on the ridiculous average he was given. Should have been capped at 12 max.

I think that is way down the list of errors, in fact I don't see that as an issue at all. Teams built to 50 knowing tgat on average they would drop 8.5 points when the averages came out. Riders like Doyle will drop a smaller percentage than many other riders.

[A ORLOV]

Doyley is currently down 5 points on the ridiculous average he was given. Should have been capped at 12 max.

Part of the plan is to have him at reserve in June

[keef robin]

Part of the plan is to have him at reserve in June

Like he was when they were champions in 2012, the days of Hansi, Killer, Batch, Steady, Morra, etc,.

[Crazy robin]

Like he was when they were champions in 2012, the days of Hansi, Killer, Batch, Steady, Morra, etc,.

How on earth can people say the sport has dropped in quality when you see the 2012 line up compared to today's😉😉

[MattK]

Part of the plan is to have him at reserve in June

 

Someone needs to share this plan with the rest of the team, as one or two of them aren't on the same page