Hey:
I've no dog in this hunt, being a Great Lakes E27.
A few observations from years of scoring ....
Your current scoring system works to level the importance of wins. If
you want to use it and encourage participation, just up the number of
events required to qualify for the season championship (i.e., 7 or 8
of 10 required for the Fun Series).
Low point systems work well for short term regattas, but tend to be
less wholesome for stretched out series. Getting a '2' for finishing
second out of two boats is NOT the same accomplishment as getting a
'2' for finishing second out of fifteen boats.
If you're going to try low point, I'd suggest modifying the normal
DNS/DNF (etc.) score to be one plus the number of boats attending
that event (as opposed to participating in the series). Either way
creates some anomolies. Long term series tend to accumulate large
numbers of boats that might only do one event (stragglers) and they
impact all the +1 scores in 'normal' low point scoring.
High point scoring also works well. Say each event if worth 20
points. Then each boats score would be determned by:
20*((# of boats sailing - your placing)+1)/(# of boats sailing)
The '20' is an arbitrary number. Could even be a variable used to
weight events for importance or participation.
Random thoughts ....
Bob
:: Hi Everyone:
::
:: Responding to Dan's review of the Fleet Scoring System
:: verse the low point scoring system proposed for the Long
:: Distance Fun Series.
::
:: The idea of scheduling around one race a month over ten
:: months is to encourage participaton across the entire
:: series. So there is a premium on showing up one race a
:: month on an easy to administer format. But that does not
:: mean there can't be some number of throw outs. So
:: someone propose that number. I can't imagine more than 2
:: or 3 in 190 races.
::
:: The problem with the tradtional fleet scoring system is
:: that some have postioned to win, and have won the Long
:: Distance Fun Series; sailing just a handful of the most
:: attended races. That defeats the purpose of encouraging
:: attendance across the series schedule.
::
:: And thats why we have two series that also meet the
:: differing needs, schedules and preferences of boat
:: owners. Two series define two sets of unique options
:: that should not be homoginized. That called diversity!
::
:: These two different sets of criteria also supports
:: having an open weight limit for the LD/Fun Series. With
:: more crew size choices its easier to get a consistent
:: crew more the the time. So, with an open limit, no one
:: should have any dificulty sailing in more of the LD/FUN
:: series races. And that is even if that boat owner is
:: actually focued on the Real Fleet Series. Consider
:: LD/FUN Series as a series in which to train and
:: integrate in new crew.
::
:: The idea of these open limits is to make the hurdles of
:: getting a boat on the water less, subsequently under the
:: Fun equation, to make the sailing more enjoyable by
:: smoothing off the highest qualities required to win the
:: Real Fleet Series.
::
:: Lets get serious, if you want to race in the Fun Series,
:: focus there. If you want to sail the Real Fleet Series
:: focus there. If you want to win both series sail in both
:: series consistently across the Fun Series Scedule at the
:: very least.
::
:: I have no problem with Real Fleet Racers sailing under
:: the traditional system; which also has the traditional
:: system's problems of reducing participation at some part
:: of the Reakl Fleet Series schedule.
::
:: But please try these innovations in the LD/FUN Seires;
:: open weight, low point scoring system to test the case.
:: We'll only know if we try and can constantly improve
:: over time.
::
:: mb
::
::
:: :: Thanks Dan, that helps a lot. -Joe B.
:: ::
:: :: :: Joe,
:: :: ::
:: :: :: As you know, in the Low-Point System your total score is
:: :: :: the sum of your finishing places in all of the races in
:: :: :: the series. The problems with this approach are 1) if
:: :: :: you don't show up for a race you get severely penalized
:: :: :: (increasing the allowed number of throwouts helps), and
:: :: :: 2) if you compete in a race with a small turnout you can
:: :: :: get a decent score even though you did poorly relative
:: :: :: to the boats that raced (i.e., coming in 2nd out of 2
:: :: :: boats is still a good score).
:: :: ::
:: :: :: In the current e27 system, your score is the percentage
:: :: :: of boats that you have beaten in all of the races that
:: :: :: you have entered over the season. In other words, you
:: :: :: add up the total number of boats that you have beaten in
:: :: :: all of the races you have entered and divide that by the
:: :: :: total number of boats entered in those races excluding
:: :: :: your boat. The highest percentage at the end of the
:: :: :: season wins. This system has the following advantages 1)
:: :: :: if you miss a race it doesn't affect your score at all,
:: :: :: 2) if you do well in a heavily attended race it helps
:: :: :: you season win percentage more than doing well in a
:: :: :: sparsely attended race, and 3) the more races you do,
:: :: :: the more throwouts you get (to promote participation).
:: :: ::
:: :: :: I think this summarizes it. If not I'm sure somebody
:: :: :: will correct me.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Dan
:: :: ::
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :: I almost finished the survey until I came across the
:: :: :: :: scoring system. Despite reading the Appendix A in RRS
:: :: :: :: and the alternative systems, I don't think I understand
:: :: :: :: it enough (they do that intentionally I swear).
:: :: :: :: http://www.ussailing.org/racemgt/documents/AppA-Long_Series_Scori...
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: I've read our system but would appreciate a clarifying
:: :: :: :: comparison with the Low Point System?
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Joe B.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: We are trying to gather input on the 2008 Season. Please
:: :: :: :: :: fill out the survey at the link below.
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=3asu66y8vxk54ei...
