MattK Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 as a numpty with rules can someone explain to me what they now mean, eg do all teams who are over the new limit have to redeclare to this new limit. No. Teams can now built up to 42, but if you are already over you can still make like-for-like changes, so the rider coming in has to be the same or lower average than the rider they are replacing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyderd Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) No. Teams can now built up to 42, but if you are already over you can still make like-for-like changes, so the rider coming in has to be the same or lower average than the rider they are replacing. OK thanks, so we will still get to see Tai for the P/Off's Edited June 22, 2017 by hyderd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 The new averages are on the SGB website and effective 23/6 Do these now apply to both leagues ?? as there is some very tasty averages for the championship Are you looking at the premiership averages or the championship averages?If a rider was currently riding only premiership I assume a 1.2 multiplier would be added if they moved to CL. Of course it should be 1.25 but this is bspa maths we are talking about! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 It will open up a whole new can of worms re average fixing if he returns. Feel sorry for the Rebels. It was always going to come back and bite us on the ass when the averages changed. We would never of been able to carry Rohan on his 9+ average since he was released but at the same time he was always going to be a steal once his average dropped. I had always hoped we would reintroduce him once the new averages came into play, ideally for Heeps now, but looks like that isn't going to happen sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call me wolfie Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 OK thanks, so we will still get to see Tai for the P/Off's Don't see it happening this year unless injury forces it. Freddie, Sam and Jacob would never be dropped and Rory has turned our fortunes around since signing, it would be grossly unfair on the lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 OK thanks, so we will still get to see Tai for the P/Off's Not unless he signs before end of July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho3a Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 Are you looking at the premiership averages or the championship averages? If a rider was currently riding only premiership I assume a 1.2 multiplier would be added if they moved to CL. Of course it should be 1.25 but this is bspa maths we are talking about! Premiership averages - i though the increase in march for holder and doyle would then reduce so there average was then applicable to all leagues hence all the confusion at the start of the season and lots of championship riders having increased averages in premiership also... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 Premiership averages - i though the increase in march for holder and doyle would then reduce so there average was then applicable to all leagues hence all the confusion at the start of the season and lots of championship riders having increased averages in premiership also... Premiership averages now apply to premiership. Championship averages to the championship. A conversion of 1.2 between them it seems. It would make no sense now for an average to apply to both given that the pl is 25% harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.N.T. Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 So after meeting at the NSS on Monday this is the best they can come up with after messing it up at the start. Shame teams are not keeping the number seven and bringing in an experienced rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunRobin Posted June 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 Zengota has seemingly reverted back to his 2016 Elite League average It's his 2015 EL average, he didn't ride in 2016. I thought Tungate's average was 5.09 from his 4H 4A so how has he ended up on 4.something?? No that is his 4/4 average on shown on 2017 averages on BSPA. Like I said they make it up as they go along. Zengota has been given his 2015 EL average, Klindt has ridden 3/5 but still gets an higher average than if they had taken the 3/5 average, which to me would seem fairer to Poole. Danny Grapmeir stays on a 4 average, not sure what they base that on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted June 22, 2017 Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) Klindt's 'real' average from his 3H/5A meetings as a reserve is 6.70. He's been given a new average of 6.36 which I can only presume takes account of his next anticipated home meeting score as a 2nd string whilst carrying an injury?! Edited June 22, 2017 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 No. Teams can now built up to 42, but if you are already over you can still make like-for-like changes, so the rider coming in has to be the same or lower average than the rider they are replacing. That comment contradicts every idea of fairness. Teams like Rye House; Leicester and Swindon are at a such disadvantage. This is the reason why these figures should have been sorted months ago and not wait until all had competed in 4H4A. All this waiting has done is accentuate the differences of those teams who have ridden more than others... And I thought all rules were made to benefit Poole, Seems now its Wolves who are the benefactors..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 That comment contradicts every idea of fairness. Teams like Rye House; Leicester and Swindon are at a such disadvantage. This is the reason why these figures should have been sorted months ago and not wait until all had competed in 4H4A. All this waiting has done is accentuate the differences of those teams who have ridden more than others... And I thought all rules were made to benefit Poole, Seems now its Wolves who are the benefactors..... Sadly this has always been the case and teams need to make the right signings at the start of the year. The logical thing to do would be to allow all teams to strengthen up to the highest average team which would be fairer but it always seems to be the case that teams at the bottom end of the averages are severely restricted when making changes. This has been talked to death on here in the past and the current lesson is to make a better job in putting together your initial team to start the season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 Or make the limit a little higher, but say that any re declaration must be no higher than that limit ie remove like for like swaps as an option 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 Or make the limit a little higher, but say that any re declaration must be no higher than that limit ie remove like for like swaps as an option The team limit could be raise to 44 pts ( this would allow all the other teams space to improve) and instruct Wolves that any changes they make would have to come down to that limit..... Like you say, scrap the swap option, whilst the team is above that limit... Either that or keep the limit to 50 pts......... At least everyone would be classed as equal... Its rules like this that kill the sport. Rules should be there to assist the lower clubs not penalise them. Our rules are arse about face. It's the top teams that should be the ones penalised and the lower clubs get the help... ........ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPEEDY69 Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 Surely the logical thing to do is make averages last for the season and they only change for the start of the next year. Why wouldn't that work? Might save all this messing about and conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 The team limit could be raise to 44 pts ( this would allow all the other teams space to improve) and instruct Wolves that any changes they make would have to come down to that limit..... Like you say, scrap the swap option, whilst the team is above that limit... Either that or keep the limit to 50 pts......... At least everyone would be classed as equal... Its rules like this that kill the sport. Rules should be there to assist the lower clubs not penalise them. Our rules are arse about face. It's the top teams that should be the ones penalised and the lower clubs get the help... ........ Any changes Wolves make would need to be like for like. If would be ridiculous to say if Freddie or Jacob was injured they would need to be replaced by a 3 pointer. Rules should look after ALL clubs I agree but to say Wolves should be made to weaken is quite frankly worse than helping out the lower clubs. It's basically saying every club who got their team building right should be penalised for it during the season, that would be the most dangerous thing to suggest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 23, 2017 Report Share Posted June 23, 2017 Any changes Wolves make would need to be like for like. If would be ridiculous to say if Freddie or Jacob was injured they would need to be replaced by a 3 pointer. Rules should look after ALL clubs I agree but to say Wolves should be made to weaken is quite frankly worse than helping out the lower clubs. It's basically saying every club who got their team building right should be penalised for it during the season, that would be the most dangerous thing to suggest. But wolves wouldn't need to register declare, they could use guest/rr.They also wouldn't be bring penalised, just made to adhere to the same points limit as other teams. And of course, on most sports if your star is injured you are disadvantaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 Any changes Wolves make would need to be like for like. If would be ridiculous to say if Freddie or Jacob was injured they would need to be replaced by a 3 pointer. Rules should look after ALL clubs I agree but to say Wolves should be made to weaken is quite frankly worse than helping out the lower clubs. It's basically saying every club who got their team building right should be penalised for it during the season, that would be the most dangerous thing to suggest. Every team goes out to get a squad of able riders, But the sport shouldn't be governed by rider on stupid averages. This year has been a joke from start to finish. All riders were given FT's (fictitious averages) and for Wolves to have benefited by over 4 points from them is outrageous. We were told that those FT were for team section only, Not to be run half a season. No team in their right mind would have agreed to Elite riders being multiply by 1.4 if they knew it was to run so long. Now that the points are out All teams should be on a reasonable level, that everyone can achieve. Not having one (Wolves) 4pts clear of the rest. Everyone could see these problems from the start , all except the BSPA rule makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) I have no problem with Wolves because they picked an improving side that isn't far off the 50 point mark they started with when the ridiculous multiplier was used - fair play to them that they picked a team of improvers. However, as I said previously, it has always been the case that struggling teams have very little options to improve within a stupid points limit and that's just how it is and doesn't look like getting changed. Also bear in mind that there appears to be a smaller pot from which to select replacements because fewer riders want to ride in the UK so it means options to strengthen are limited and then when you consider that a lot ride in two leagues in the UK, it reduces their availability too. It seems the BSPA are happy to build teams to an arbitrary limit and then to let improving teams pull away from the pack with the rest unable to compete on a level playing field because they can only strengthen to a much lower limit than the improving teams - which just cements the gap! In the meantime, the non-improving teams lose more and more supporters most of which manage to break the habit of attending to see whatever dross is put out and stop going altogether. This isn't sour grapes because it looks like there are limited or no options for Swindon to strengthen (although I believe that Rohan for Dany would have been the change to allow Swindon to challenge for the playoffs) because I accept that it has always been this way but it can't be right that the following pack have more limited options to strengthen than the leaders - where is the fairness in that? If teams were allowed to strengthen to the highest averaged team level then that would be fair because it is still a fair competition but to have teams building to 42 points when one team has a near 49 point average is just plain stupid - but that's British speedway for you and helps keep the costs down. Any other sport would increase the limit but speedway chooses to dumb it down so much so that crowd levels continue to fall. Edited June 24, 2017 by Steve0 2 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.