I'd like your guys input on season points.

Here's some options posted by Joe Paluch in the Arizona region. Let me know what you guys think! We need to iron this out well before Gateway!


NASA uses the following System.
100,90,85,80,75,70 and 7th and higher subtract one point per spot

2007 Rocky Mtn points were as follows
100,90,80,70,60,50 and 50 for all remaining positions

In Arizona 2007 we used the following
100, 90,85,80,75 (a 5 point drop off per spot minimum of 10 points)

In Az in 2008 we are using the following
100, 90, 85
10 Point spread to 2nd Place
5 Point spread from 2nd to 3rd and down to 10th place
3 Point spread from 10th to 11th and down 15th place
2 Point spread from 15th to 16th and down to 20th place
25 Points minimum for all finishers 21st place and higher

The system seems a little complex, but helps spread the points and point gaps down lower in the groups. This makes fighting for 8th place more alot valuable than 11th. In the NASA system 8th = 68 and 11th = 65 so 3 spots get you only 3 more points. In the 08 Az system 8th = 60 pts and 11th = 47pts. Now that is pretty clearly something worth fighting for as there is a gap between 8th and 11th, but you still get very usefull points for 11th. When you start having 10-15 cars in class I think a points system that rewards the finishing order at these lower positions is good to allow the lower pack guys to have season long battles with other guys. You may not earn Toyo bucks for being 5th or 6th overall in season points, but it can still be fun to compete 2-3 guys all season long and watch the point ebb and flow during the course of a season.

Just let me know what you guys want for 08 and I can make it happen.

I think it is important to make racing for a position important, now matter where you are in the pack. I also don't think that there should be as many points rewarded in a small field. If only 3 cars show up and the last guy finished way off pace, getting 85 points seems a little unfair.

What is you had a system that was completely based on field size? It would be a stepped system where point were based on the number of entires. You would take 100 divided by the number of cars competing.

So if you had a field of 12, then you stepping would be 8.34. So points would be awarded as follows:

12th - 8 pts
11th - 17 pts
10th - 25 pts
9th - 33 pts
8th - 42 pts
7th - 50 pts
6th - 58 pts
5th - 67 pts
4th - 75 pts
3rd - 83 pts
2nd - 92 pts
1st - 100 pts


If 5 cars started the race, then the points would be as follows:

5th - 20 pts
4th - 40 pts
3rd - 60 pts
2nd - 80 pts
1st - 100 pts


Alternatively, you could use the something like the Proscore system that OSKAR Systems uses in with their karting timing software. The way this works is that everyone starts with a Proscore of 100. Your score is adjusted +/- based on you finishing position in a pack.

So after the first race with 5 drivers the resulting Proscores might work like this:

1st - John - 110 pts (10+)
2nd - Steve - 105 pts (5+)
3rd - Brian - 100 pts (0+/-)
4th - Mark - 95 pts (5-)
5th - BJ - 90 pts (10-)

Now the way OSKAR works isn't simply by awarding points based on finishing position alone. It is weighted based on the Proscore of the people you placed a head of in a give race. In the first example the math was easy, because everyone has the same starting Proscore. In the example below, you'll see what happens when you score after having varying Proscores.


1st - BJ - 104 pts (14+)
2nd - Brian - 106 pts (6+)
3rd - John - 107 pts (2-)
4th - Mark - 96 pts (1+)
5th - Steve - 92 pts (13-)

I didn't use the actual formula in the above example--these are guesstimated numbers. But you can see that the awarded or subtracted points are weighted by who you beat or lost to. It's a complicated, but interesting system that keeps the point system relational. It is almost a skill rating more than a simple traditional points system.

-bj

There is a problem with awarding points given number of racers that attend.

You can have a race with the top 2-3 guys in class. Then can have a great knockdown drag out fight for the entire race distance. Should their finish points be changed just because there were 5 cars in class vs 10? They still would finshed 1,2,3 with the same effort. I have never favored awarding less points for fewer cars.

Now clearly if you are a slower guy and do well since all the fast guys broke or choose not to show up... well you get a little extra bonus. I'd rather see than than penalizing those that do attend for those that don't.

Wow, now that's input! I had no idea that level of complexity was out there. While I do think it's cool in some ways, I also think that people need to be able to understand it fully without a math major. I do appreciate that postions should mean something further down the finishing order, which is why the '08 Az system seems good.

The weighting based on finishing is interesting, but it would make people less interested in going to lesser-attended events, because there would be less point s available, and they could get less points for finishing second than 4th at other races. I really want people to feel like every event is worth attending to keep the event entries up.

Still, these are cool, well thought out ideas, and I appreciate the out-of-the -box thinking. We'll see if there is some more input on them as well.

Eric how about including the three races at the Mid-Ohio Nationals to encourage participation there. Yes, Cup just instituted this and I think it's a good idea that we could use too.

Bill

Bill, I like that idea, as we need to encourage Nationals participation. It may make quite a few drops neccesary, though. If we have 16 races in the "regular season", and 3 more at Nationals, that's 19 races total.

If we had 4 season drops, then someone who didn't go to Nationals can't miss a whole weekend. I'd say a minimum of 5 drops would be needed then, maybe 6. That would leave 13-14 "scored" races. Still reasonable, I think.

What about Miller? Should it be involved at all, or a bonus event that could replace one or two drops?

Keep it coming!