A Maths question - UCI Rankings

[Anonymous]

Just had a thought. This was the new season rankings for the Pro Tour with the top 15 being granted automatic pro tour status.

ProTeam Division 1 Selection
1. Luxembourg Cycling Project (Lux)
2. Rabobank (Hol)
3. Garmin-Cervelo (USA)
4. HTC-Highroad (USA)
5. Omega (Bel)
6. Lampre (It)
7. Katusha (Rus)
8. Sly (G.B)
9. Liquigas-Cannondale (USA)
10. Saxo-Bank (Den)
11. RadioShack (USA)
12. Vacansoleil (Hol)
13. Astana (Kaz)
14. Movistar (Spa)
15. BMC (Swz)

If you take lance's points off of Shack, where would they fall to (i have no idea how the rankings work)

And does it raise the possibility that teams with "retiring" riders could cheat the system by getting the rider to not retire until february so they could count his points from the previous season for the rankings.

How close would Radioshack have been to not being in the top 15 without his points?

 

[ansimi]

I'm not sure of the math for the licenses but they show the makeup of the points for the rankings before transfers.

It looks like it's just the points of the top 5 on the team? They show Radioshack with 621 points and Armstrong was 3rd on his team with 85 points. If he were excluded then 6th on his team was Machado with 52.

I don't think it would have made a difference in this case. Of course, they made up the rules so late and kept it so mysterious that numbers don't even matter that much.

I can see a few riders might be asked to delay retirement but there wouldn't be very many cases where a retiring rider would have a lot of points. Even if one did, cycling really is a sport where a the team helps the individual to glory so the team can lay a reasonable claim to the points.

 

[ingsve]

I'm not sure of the math for the licenses but they show the makeup of the points for the rankings before transfers.

It looks like it's just the points of the top 5 on the team? They show Radioshack with 621 points and Armstrong was 3rd on his team with 85 points. If he were excluded then 6th on his team was Machado with 52.

I don't think it would have made a difference in this case. Of course, they made up the rules so late and kept it so mysterious that numbers don't even matter that much.

I can see a few riders might be asked to delay retirement but there wouldn't be very many cases where a retiring rider would have a lot of points. Even if one did, cycling really is a sport where a the team helps the individual to glory so the team can lay a reasonable claim to the points.

No, teh points were for the top 15 of the team but it's not the points from the World Ranking straight up. They had a points system where you got points for where you ended up in the various (modified) world or continental rankings plus some extra points for certain wins etc. Figuring it out without the exact points scale is probably very hard.

 

[Andy99]

Hmm, yeah as far as I understand, the rankings were based on a CQ type renking consiting of world tour + certain continental tour points.

I don't think anyone really knows what points count for what.

Why, oh why can't we go back to the old system?! (effectively CQ)

 

[ansimi]

Yeah, if we could access the rules, I could build spreadsheets to test all sorts of scenarios, but I don't think it's available.

I doubt Armstrong was important in the numbers though. I think using broader results and US races would make him even less comparatively important than in the numbers I used above. He really didn't do much in 2010 and the team had decent depth.

 

[theswordsman]

Here is the points scale for UCI events.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/Modules...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjY0NTM&LangId=1

Detailed points by team for 2011. They used to only count the top 5 riders on a team (or nation) at any point.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MTYwNzk&LangId=1

Here's where they show the details of points earned by individual riders.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/Modules...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjY0NDQ&LangId=1

Velonews had the final 2010 Points/Rankings for Riders, Nations & Teams

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...world-rankings-updated-october-18-2010_146781

 

[ingsve]

Here is the points scale for UCI events.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/Modules...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjY0NTM&LangId=1

Detailed points by team for 2011. They used to only count the top 5 riders on a team (or nation) at any point.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MTYwNzk&LangId=1

Here's where they show the details of points earned by individual riders.

http://www.uciworldtour.com/Modules...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjY0NDQ&LangId=1

That's the wrong ranking. Thats' the World Tour ranking which is equivalent to the older World Ranking and Pro Tour Ranking. What we are talking about is the ranking that is used to rank team for the following year to determine the sporting criteria of the licensing process.

 

[ingsve]

This is the only outline of the points scales that I know of. It was released on an early date so changes might have been done after this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/docs/div/Calculdelavaleursportivedescoureurs.pdf

The problem here is that the points given for the various continental tours are not based on the final continental tour rankings but a modified version where the PT riders are also added. Usually PT riders don't feature in the continental rankings but in order to determine team strength they want to add all the relevant races so that's why they take into account what PT riders do in all races.

 

[ksmith]

The points part is ok but a bit foggy. The problem is the ethics part, how does that work? Or is the ethics part who is Pat's favourite at the time.

It is time for the U.C.I. to tell everyone how it works.This includes fans.

I'm still waiting on how F.D.J. didn't make it.

For example: How about posting points with the results,with the cobras problem the sanction against the team. This way everyone knows.

 

[ingsve]

The points part is ok but a bit foggy. The problem is the ethics part, how does that work? Or is the ethics part who is Pat's favourite at the time.

It is time for the U.C.I. to tell everyone how it works.This includes fans.

I'm still waiting on how F.D.J. didn't make it.

For example: How about posting points with the results,with the cobras problem the sanction against the team. This way everyone knows.

As far as I know the ethics comes mainly in when determining the final places. The top 15 are based on the ranking barring any serious economic problems and then the licensing committe determines the final three places out of the 5 that are 16th to 20th in ranking. That part seems like it's fairly subjective or at least not based on hard numbers but rather a discussion back and forth until they can reach a decision.

 

[Anonymous]

Still raises the problem that Armstrongs points count towards Radioshacks top 15 ranking despite only doing one race before retiring. Really does leave the door open to abuse.

 

[NickBVK]

For RadioShack specifically, how many results did Lance even get worth all that many points.

2nd Tour de Suisse off the top of my head.

 

[ksmith]

As far as I know the ethics comes mainly in when determining the final places. The top 15 are based on the ranking barring any serious economic problems and then the licensing committe determines the final three places out of the 5 that are 16th to 20th in ranking. That part seems like it's fairly subjective or at least not based on hard numbers but rather a discussion back and forth until they can reach a decision.

Surley ethics count for all teams. Rider gets busted team is hit, it should'nt matter where you are in the standing.

I'm not having a go at you, maybe the U.C.I.can explain it.

 

[kurtinsc]

For RadioShack specifically, how many results did Lance even get worth all that many points.

2nd Tour de Suisse off the top of my head.

The only ones I can think of are 2nd in tour de suisse, 7th in Murcia and 3rd in Luxembourg.

Maybe enough to drop RS a place or two, but not enough to make a significant difference I think.

 

[ingsve]

Surley ethics count for all teams. Rider gets busted team is hit, it should'nt matter where you are in the standing.

I'm not having a go at you, maybe the U.C.I.can explain it.

Ya, possibly. There may be a cursory ethics check just as there is a financial check for the top 15 but from what I have read for the top 15 it is very much about the points. But I somehow don't see a team like HTC or Liquigas etc losing their license over a single doping question. I would probably take provens acts of organized doping by the team to get a top team thrown out. It's more likely that ethics is simply one of the factors that are weighed in when the committe is discussing back and forth.