Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

[Grachan]

Speedway Star have tweeted this: "BEEN banging this drum since Adam and Eve ... at least it seems that long. All teams should be allowed to start a new season with the same seven riders as they finished the previous season with. The points limit should be the number that the team with the highest figure achieved."

Also, Swindon Chairman Terry Russell is saying he wants to be able to keep his team for next year, and other sides to be able to build up to that.

What do people think of this?

On one hand, I do, sometimes, feel that the points limit is too low and there is this absolute obsession with equality at the start of the year which can lead to average manipulation and constant team changes throughout the year as people try to play the averages.

At the same time, would we get teams like Sheffield moving up if they weren't guaranteed riders having to become available from other sides? And when the team that finishes at the top of the league table can't maintain top flight racing, do we need to cut the  cloth accordingly? Or would Poole have had bigger crowds with a stronger side?

This year, for example, the points limit would be set at 46.34 for next season. Peterborough finished on 37.83. The top side will always average over the current 42.50 limit, meaning the league would have to strengthen every year if sides wanted to match the champions.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Grachan

[hyabb17]

The speedway star have been tweeting about this issue. They've made one very good point....If you up the limit you will then have more options available to you...the tweet says this ''The higher the points limit the more expanded the rider market becomes. Would you rather be one promoter with a choice of 10 riders or one of 10 promoters with a choice of one rider.''

 

[arnieg]

16 minutes ago, hyabb17 said:

The speedway star have been tweeting about this issue. They've made one very good point....If you up the limit you will then have more options available to you...the tweet says this ''The higher the points limit the more expanded the rider market becomes. Would you rather be one promoter with a choice of 10 riders or one of 10 promoters with a choice of one rider.''

 

This assumes that these riders would be willing to ride in British speedway for the money available. To bring the other teams up to a strength near Swindon you have to find seven riders (two for P'boro and one each for the other five teams) at the Iversen/ Zagar level. And if you can't persuade all these riders to come over here then the league will be unbalanced and you will have teams wanting to drop down as a better alternative to being league whipping boys.

It is a struggle to find seven teams that want to compete at the current points levels. With higher limits there would be even fewer.

 

PS If Ipswich had won the league would next season's limit be 41.43?

[MattK]

19 minutes ago, Grachan said:

This year, for example, the points limit would be set at 46.34 for next season. Peterborough finished on 37.83. The top side will always average over the current 42.50 limit, meaning the league would have to strengthen every year if sides wanted to match the champions.

There are two problems I foresee with that. Firstly, are there riders available for team to strengthen up? Take Peterborough, they finished 8.51 points under Swindon. Who are these mythical 10+ point riders who didn't ride in Britain in 2019, but will next season? Secondly, even if these mythical riders existed, could teams afford them?

[Daniel Smith]

I'm not convinced this is a good idea at all. The reason I'd say is that the idea is to keep the same 1-7?

If that's the case then Swindon's team would be in trouble as I don't see a great deal of improvement average wise in their team so would end up stagnant. 

While every other team are able to strengthen significantly that it would put Swindon in danger of not making the play-offs at all. 

If Swindon are allowed to sign whoever they like up to last seasons average then wouldn't that defeat the objective of allowing teams averages to be set by the title winning team so that they can keep the same 7??

If the latter is the case, we may as well stick with the 42.50

[Bagpuss]

Weakening the product year on year just hasn’t worked, but at the same time every team has to be as competitive as possible for the league to work, particularly if it is a small one (ie less than ten teams). 

[gazzac]

42.5 every season, all season, every league and leave it alone, everyone will know where  they are at the beginning and end of season, and can team build straight away.

[Grachan]

27 minutes ago, arnieg said:

This assumes that these riders would be willing to ride in British speedway for the money available. To bring the other teams up to a strength near Swindon you have to find seven riders (two for P'boro and one each for the other five teams) at the Iversen/ Zagar level. And if you can't persuade all these riders to come over here then the league will be unbalanced and you will have teams wanting to drop down as a better alternative to being league whipping boys.

It is a struggle to find seven teams that want to compete at the current points levels. With higher limits there would be even fewer.

 

PS If Ipswich had won the league would next season's limit be 41.43?

Do teams have to be built level, though? That wasn't always the case. I have a programme somewhere from the start of the 1975 or 1976 season, which listed, purely out of interest, the total averages from the teams in the league. I think it was Exeter who had the highest, at over 50, and Birmingham at the bottom, built to around 39 (with bonus points!).

I don't think that the league could, at present, sustain such a high points limit due to the way it continually struggles to get enough sides to join the top flight to make it viable. Also, as you say, who are the riders who would actually want to ride here?

It could be an option in the future, though, if the league decides to strengthen again.

 

[Grachan]

17 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

I'm not convinced this is a good idea at all. The reason I'd say is that the idea is to keep the same 1-7?

If that's the case then Swindon's team would be in trouble as I don't see a great deal of improvement average wise in their team so would end up stagnant. 

While every other team are able to strengthen significantly that it would put Swindon in danger of not making the play-offs at all. 

If Swindon are allowed to sign whoever they like up to last seasons average then wouldn't that defeat the objective of allowing teams averages to be set by the title winning team so that they can keep the same 7??

If the latter is the case, we may as well stick with the 42.50

It should be pointed out that, even if the average was set to the highest average in the league, it wouldn't be compulsory for that team to retain the same riders. Just an option.

[Grachan]

27 minutes ago, gustix said:

I am off topic but impressed by the tread title. Does it qualify as the longest ever used on the BSF? It reads:

Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

I believe there was a longer one once that read: "Why do some people always feel the need to go onto threads on this forum and, for some reason, post stuff that is totally irrelevant in order to side-track what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable discussion in the scheme of things", although I think it got deleted by the mods.

[Daniel Smith]

1 minute ago, Grachan said:

It should be pointed out that, even if the average was set to the highest average in the league, it wouldn't be compulsory for that team to retain the same riders. Just an option.

If that is the case, then 42.50 is sufficient. 

[Grachan]

21 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

If that is the case, then 42.50 is sufficient. 

It probably is at the moment, although I'm not sure how that is connected to the point I made about retaining the same side not being compulsory.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

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

[Method]

18 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

If that is the case, then 42.50 is sufficient. 

But the current situation is set up to punish those teams that do well and riders that improve. Where is the sense in that?

I have always been perplexed by this average thing - I get the premise, but it is flawed in practice.

A level playing ground at the start of the year - lovely in a disney book, but in professional sport? Rediculous.

Rugby, Football, Cricket - do any of those teams have to drop their star player at the end of the year because he has scored too many points for them and helped them win the league? No chance - that guy is now their star asset. Speedway? Nah that guy now gets kicked to touch...

The deeper you look, the more of an issue it becomes.

Why should riders have any loyalty to these clubs when they know that doing well could cost them a job next year? Do too well and no team will sign you... So when a rider knows that doing too well could cost him his team spot next year, why should be care about the team - they clearly dont have any loyalty to him.

All the "new fans" that come into the sport, develop an affinity to their team and get a favourite rider, buy the tshirt / cap and a few photos - turn up next year to see that he has been dropped because he DID WELL and now he is riding for another team? Then the same again next year? "Why has my teams best rider been dropped?"...

This system of punishing teams and riders for doing well creates a situation where there is no continuity from one year to the next and is rediculous for a professional sport - especially one that is loosing support rapidly.

Raising the points limit to that of the highest team allows all teams to keep their current 1-7 if the supporters (paying customers) develop affinity towards them and allows all clubs to offer longer contracts to riders which then helps develop loyalty and respect between all 3 parties (riders, clubs, customers). There is no obligation to keep your 1-7, but it gives teams the opportunity to do so.

Capping the limit at the highest team of last year also means that 1 club cannot buy up all the top riders and clearly dominate. Clearly speedway does not have the money to become a football situation where money makes a team, but some level of continuity must exist to retain customers interest.

I personally have no idea what I support anymore, I go to my local track because I like speedway - I have lost all interest in the team itself because it changes all the damn time, I dont care to worry who is riding because its fundamentally irellivant.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Method

[Bagpuss]

18 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

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

Luckily it seems we don’t have to worry about Ford and his rule bending in our league next year

[Flappy]

45 average for me. 

[Reliant Robin]

1 hour ago, Daniel Smith said:

I'm not convinced this is a good idea at all. The reason I'd say is that the idea is to keep the same 1-7?

If that's the case then Swindon's team would be in trouble as I don't see a great deal of improvement average wise in their team so would end up stagnant. 

While every other team are able to strengthen significantly that it would put Swindon in danger of not making the play-offs at all. 

If Swindon are allowed to sign whoever they like up to last seasons average then wouldn't that defeat the objective of allowing teams averages to be set by the title winning team so that they can keep the same 7??

If the latter is the case, we may as well stick with the 42.50

Is this perhaps not the main point? Swindon's team that finished the 2019 season was built within a 42.5 point limit, so why could they not be allowed continuity, even if the points limit remains at 42.5? 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Reliant Robin

[Daniel Smith]

35 minutes ago, Grachan said:

It probably is at the moment, although I'm not sure how that is connected to the point I made about retaining the same side not being compulsory.

It's relevant in that the idea has come about because fans, promoters etc get frustrated that they're unable to keep their title winning 7 for continuity.

If the team building average is allowed to be (for example) 46.78 and the title winning team makes 3 changes, these changes would only be made, in the main, because they have more chance of increasing their individual average over the rider's from the previous season. 

This then would make it even more difficult for the chasing pack to build a team that would be competitive.

In principle the idea is ok but the reality will be very different. 

Sticking to a set team average of 42.50 or 45.00 make far more sense. 

[SteveLyric2]

The final averages of the 7 Premiership teams is approx 42.5.  Also the average of the top and bottom clubs is around 42points+.

If the average of the top team is taken ie 46+ then its not simply a question of rider availability for the other 6 (or 7) teams building to that level. Its also about cost!!

All clubs operate to their own individual and varied budget based on their very different fixed and variable costs as well as income.

Comparisons with other sports are frankly ridiculous as there are many players of a similar standard around and plentiful monies around to be able to afford them.

In order for the successful teams to not be penalised too much then maybe the points limit should be increased by 2.5% with the same 2.5% discount being for ALL British riders?

[DC2]

1 hour ago, Grachan said:

It should be pointed out that, even if the average was set to the highest average in the league, it wouldn't be compulsory for that team to retain the same riders. Just an option.

 

That bit doesn’t work for me.

If Swindon re-sign the same seven riders their team limit, as the highest one, should be the new limit.

If they do not re-sign the same seven then it goes down to the next highest averaged team to see if they want to sign the same seven and so on until we get to 42 in default.

The main reason for the rule would be to encourage rider and fan loyalty. In the hope that fan numbers rise and the sport can survive.

Equalisation would be possible if appropriate riders were available for the other clubs but it would be secondary to the principle of encouraging loyalty.