I may as well use the launch of the main game as the occasion to launch this, the antidote to CQ games, as riders may come to light in the same search through rider lists.
As last year I suggest it is approached with a sense of humour and not too competitively: 26 teams entered last year (although one was way over budget and never returned with alterations to his squad), and in the end it was decided by just 25 points.
It is essentially the same as any other CQ game, this time with a squad of 15 riders (no more, no less) and a budget of up to 5000 CQ points earned in 2014. The essential difference is that you score by selecting riders who will do as poorly as possible in 2015 compared to 2014. Each rider's score in this game will be the drop in CQ points between their final 2014 score and their 2015 score. Should a rider confound your prediction and do better in 2015 than in 2014, then he will have a negative score in the game. Indeed, the most popular pick in the game last year took points off the teams that chose him.
Riders must have a contract at at least UCI Continental level to be entered into the game (thus excluding some of the extraordinary names dredged up from minor national championships results that were entered last year, and the long list of retired riders), and must have some 2014 points to lose.
As last year, a rider must a rider must race on at least 20 days (as recorded by PCS) to get their full score, if they do not, they will score their drop in points reduced proportionately (eg, Constantino Zaballa scored 268 CQ points in 2013, and only 9 in 2014, a drop of 259 points, but according to PCS, he only had 12 race days in 2014. Therefore, his value to the team that picked him for this game last year was 155 points ((268-9)*12/20) rounded to the nearest whole number). They must not have previously announced an intention to resign before racing 20 days (ie Cadel Evans is out).
Doping history does not affect a rider's eligibility or score for this game: 2014 CQ scores as published in their end of year download determine the starting point for all riders: if they were suspended for all or part of 2014, they will have fewer points to lose during the game, and even if they subsequently have 2014 results rescinded, those results will still be points they are trying to lose. And if they get nabbed during 2015, then they will probably either fail to complete 20 days or will still have points unjustly earned in 2015 on their record at the end of the year, as CQ is rarely that fast in reversing them.
If you choose anyone who I cannot find as a member of a team for 2015 (I'll probably use the team listings on uci.ch) I might ask you for evidence of the contract. Team websites or cycling websites will suffice, but they should be reporting the contract as a done deal, not just expected. I would hope to give managers every chance to confirm validity or to change your squad, which will be easier if you submit a team comfortably before the deadline, but riders who are selected but who don't have a contract will attract a 200 point penalty.
PM submissions to me by the start of the Tour Down Under stage 1 (I'll look up the date some time: it gives a little time after the main game deadline for adjusting your mindset in searches), in CQ format please. Expect monthly-ish updates, think about it as a side list while shortlisting for the main game.
Only 2 teams last year managed to lose more than half of their points: most of us would happily have swapped some of our selection with riders in our main CQ game squad. Can we do better this year at identifying those who are, at least for now, on the decline?
Teams so far (as of 8pm UK time on 18 Jan: 28 hours left)
AlPacino
Alykaptan
Armchair Cyclist
Akuryo
Del1962
Derrudi*
DJSprtsch
Fauniera
Flo
JeroenK
Joelsim
Leadbelly
Lenissart*
Rote Laterne
Shalgo
Skidmark
TheSceptic
* indicates issue with budget/eligibility: manager informed.
If teams remain overbudget, I propose to remove the cheapest rider whose removal will bring them back into the allowable spend, but that rider will be re-added to their squad if he exceeds his 2014 CQ ranking; in other words, he can provide negative points to the team, but not positive ones, so I don't think anyone can claim that teams involved will have gained any advantage by breaking the budget rules.
As last year I suggest it is approached with a sense of humour and not too competitively: 26 teams entered last year (although one was way over budget and never returned with alterations to his squad), and in the end it was decided by just 25 points.
It is essentially the same as any other CQ game, this time with a squad of 15 riders (no more, no less) and a budget of up to 5000 CQ points earned in 2014. The essential difference is that you score by selecting riders who will do as poorly as possible in 2015 compared to 2014. Each rider's score in this game will be the drop in CQ points between their final 2014 score and their 2015 score. Should a rider confound your prediction and do better in 2015 than in 2014, then he will have a negative score in the game. Indeed, the most popular pick in the game last year took points off the teams that chose him.
Riders must have a contract at at least UCI Continental level to be entered into the game (thus excluding some of the extraordinary names dredged up from minor national championships results that were entered last year, and the long list of retired riders), and must have some 2014 points to lose.
As last year, a rider must a rider must race on at least 20 days (as recorded by PCS) to get their full score, if they do not, they will score their drop in points reduced proportionately (eg, Constantino Zaballa scored 268 CQ points in 2013, and only 9 in 2014, a drop of 259 points, but according to PCS, he only had 12 race days in 2014. Therefore, his value to the team that picked him for this game last year was 155 points ((268-9)*12/20) rounded to the nearest whole number). They must not have previously announced an intention to resign before racing 20 days (ie Cadel Evans is out).
Doping history does not affect a rider's eligibility or score for this game: 2014 CQ scores as published in their end of year download determine the starting point for all riders: if they were suspended for all or part of 2014, they will have fewer points to lose during the game, and even if they subsequently have 2014 results rescinded, those results will still be points they are trying to lose. And if they get nabbed during 2015, then they will probably either fail to complete 20 days or will still have points unjustly earned in 2015 on their record at the end of the year, as CQ is rarely that fast in reversing them.
If you choose anyone who I cannot find as a member of a team for 2015 (I'll probably use the team listings on uci.ch) I might ask you for evidence of the contract. Team websites or cycling websites will suffice, but they should be reporting the contract as a done deal, not just expected. I would hope to give managers every chance to confirm validity or to change your squad, which will be easier if you submit a team comfortably before the deadline, but riders who are selected but who don't have a contract will attract a 200 point penalty.
PM submissions to me by the start of the Tour Down Under stage 1 (I'll look up the date some time: it gives a little time after the main game deadline for adjusting your mindset in searches), in CQ format please. Expect monthly-ish updates, think about it as a side list while shortlisting for the main game.
Only 2 teams last year managed to lose more than half of their points: most of us would happily have swapped some of our selection with riders in our main CQ game squad. Can we do better this year at identifying those who are, at least for now, on the decline?
Teams so far (as of 8pm UK time on 18 Jan: 28 hours left)
AlPacino
Alykaptan
Armchair Cyclist
Akuryo
Del1962
Derrudi*
DJSprtsch
Fauniera
Flo
JeroenK
Joelsim
Leadbelly
Lenissart*
Rote Laterne
Shalgo
Skidmark
TheSceptic
* indicates issue with budget/eligibility: manager informed.
If teams remain overbudget, I propose to remove the cheapest rider whose removal will bring them back into the allowable spend, but that rider will be re-added to their squad if he exceeds his 2014 CQ ranking; in other words, he can provide negative points to the team, but not positive ones, so I don't think anyone can claim that teams involved will have gained any advantage by breaking the budget rules.