Regional/National Points System

[116svvh]

I had an idea the other day about the points system we use for the regions and whether or not those should have some bearing on the nationals. So here is my thought:

 

Award points starting with last place. i.e. 10 points. If there is only one car in the class, the winner gets 10 points. If 10 cars, the winner gets 100, second 90 etc.

 

If a racer travels to another region, he gets double points. This would allow those with few cars or no other cars to obtain points by working hard to grow his home region and beating racers in other regions. Double points would only be available for two weekends.

 

To make the Nationals even more interesting, the nationals would be worth maybe triple points. The reason for that is to give everyone a theoretical chance at becoming National Champ by pulling off two or three impressive wins even though they have been a back marker all year or had car trouble or some other bad luck. It would also give an advantage to the racer who kicked butt all year long beating 10 or so other cars race in and race out. I have not attempted the math to figure out how to calculate the national points to make that work. I am a lawyer because I can't do math. (33%, I can do.)

 

This system would reward competitors who compete in every event and/or travel to run in different regions and are consistent the whole year. As it works now, I obtain maximum points by running the green flag lap, pulling into the pits and running the white flag lap when I am the only car in class. That can't work if we are going to truly have a national point system.

 

hell I don't know if anyone even wants a national point system. I just had what I thought might be a Eureka moment. I am sorry if I totally copied someone else's idea. I probably read it while recouping from the plane crash in the Andes I survived with the help of some friends.

 

I am not sure the current system is broke, so fixing it until it is broke is an option. I am sure that my formulas for double or triple points is not mathematically correct. However, I would be interested to hear others' thought on any of the above.

[bmw22]

that's almost exactly what we did in 2004 when we had seperate regional points a a national points championship.

[FlyingDog]

The 10pts counting up sounds good until you consider the person with a small racing budget in a low participation region. He may race his entire regions season and get 50-100 points. Somebody in Great Lakes or Mid-Atlantic could get that number of points in 1 race. A third person could be a back-marker the whole year but have the money and time to travel all over the place getting single double and triple points. Would you really want the national champion to be a racer who never finished above last?

 

Expanding on your idea... give the current points for position, then give bonus points for the number of cars that finish half the laps. If the bonus is 3 pts per car and there are 5 cars with over half the winner's laps, the winner gets 115 pts. That way the guy with no competition in California gets about the same points as 3rd or 4th in a big region vs 10th place in your scenario.

 

I think home region points should be worth more than out of region points (if there is a difference). That encourages people to run their entire home season instead of bouncing around to different regions.

 

------

 

I don't think there is a way to make a national points system entirely fair without having certain designated races from all regions and only those races count for national points. Come up with 8-10 events and count 5 or 6 of them. Even the low budget racers can participate by trading off a few region races to go to the national races in other regions. By making it about 2/3 count, they can pick the races closest to save transportation time and costs.

[cstreit911]

As a representative of a smaller but growing region this dude can't abide lesser points for lesser competitors. I understand the spirit of what you're saying John, that you should be rewarded for ostensibly working harder to get those points. A guy with 15 competitors working harder vs. one with 3. However, it doesn't take into account the nature of the competition.

 

I'll use myself as an example. We don't have a lot of cars in the Midwest. However he demonstrated in Nationals, young Mr. Osiecki made me work for every single point I got in the region this year in GTS4. Do I deserve less? A guy in a better populated region but with a class full of slower cars or new inexperienced drivers could take any chance I have of winning Nationals simply by circumstance. This system would penalize smaller regions (ie every one but Great Lakes).

 

I dont' think we have the numbers to support such a discretionary system right now. Considering the costs of running a sep. GTS nationals I think we need to mitigate the risk of losing participants for a few years. If we only get 30 cars at GTS Nationals, who pays the loss?

[JSG1901]

No problem. We just put in a cross-handicapping system like they use in the college Bowl Championship Series. Nothing to it.

 

Let's see...

 

All we have to do is compare all the laps of all the drivers in all the classes against all the other laps of all the other drivers on the same tracks, then figure which is faster overall--factoring in weather conditions--then cross-compare those drivers that DID race on the same tracks to those who DIDN'T race on the same tracks by seeing how they compared to the guys who raced on their tracks AND on the other guys' tracks, and then....

 

Hm. Maybe not so simple after all.

[scottbm3]

As a representative of a smaller but growing region this dude can't abide lesser points for lesser competitors. I understand the spirit of what you're saying John, that you should be rewarded for ostensibly working harder to get those points. A guy with 15 competitors working harder vs. one with 3. However, it doesn't take into account the nature of the competition.

 

I'll use myself as an example. We don't have a lot of cars in the Midwest. However he demonstrated in Nationals, young Mr. Osiecki made me work for every single point I got in the region this year in GTS4. Do I deserve less? A guy in a better populated region but with a class full of slower cars or new inexperienced drivers could take any chance I have of winning Nationals simply by circumstance. This system would penalize smaller regions (ie every one but Great Lakes).

 

I dont' think we have the numbers to support such a discretionary system right now. Considering the costs of running a sep. GTS nationals I think we need to mitigate the risk of losing participants for a few years. If we only get 30 cars at GTS Nationals, who pays the loss?

 

 

Most of the things mentioned here have been going on in BMW Club racing the past years, and the National Champion seems to come down to who can travel to the select bonus races and collect the most points. It becomes a game of picking the right venues and gives little support to the the home regions. It also allows guys to become Champions that never race against the bulk of the racers in the country or go head to head with any of the other top racers. I know ours isnt perfect, but its sure a lot better than what I've seen going on in the other clubs.

 

-Scott B.

[cstreit911]

Wait, so you're agreeing with me? I gotta get my calendar out.

 

Spending your way to the podium through wicked engine mods and pro-support is really no worse than spending it thru hitting 25 tracks throughout the year. Now don't get me wrong here. I think "eventually" there should be a stricter criteria for making Nationals and possibly some reward for making the effort to run a lot. It's a big investment and we might consider rewarding those who do it. A "top gun" shootout is certainly an exciting prospect. (ala SCCA Nat's) but as a newer organization I like the current format.

[scottbm3]

Wait, so you're agreeing with me? I gotta get my calendar out.

 

Spending your way to the podium through wicked engine mods and pro-support is really no worse than spending it thru hitting 25 tracks throughout the year. Now don't get me wrong here. I think "eventually" there should be a stricter criteria for making Nationals and possibly some reward for making the effort to run a lot. It's a big investment and we might consider rewarding those who do it. A "top gun" shootout is certainly an exciting prospect. (ala SCCA Nat's) but as a newer organization I like the current format.

 

Chris, That probably caught you by surprise, huh..

 

I will also add that I think to run the GTS Nationals a racer should have to run a certain amount of GTS events and support the series, either in his own region or some other. Running one or two GTS races then adding in TT's and other series races, I don't believe is good for our series. I know NASA tries to get maximum participation, but supporting the series you are trying to win a championship in should be important.

 

 

-Scott B.

[116svvh]

where's the smiley thing with the white flag?