• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

CQ ranking

Page 112 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
LukeSchmid said:
I have a (short??) list of 104 riders for next years, 8 of this years team are on it including Boonen. I probably will take 1 or 2 again, that is it. I have lots of youngesters on my list who probably are not going to teams that make it worthwhile picking them. Probably 2013 candidates a number of them.

Hah, I beat you! My shortlist is at 145 riders at the moment - though I don't know if that's good or bad :D And admittedly quite a few probably aren't that relevant anymore.
 
Every time I think of starting a shortlist, I decide it's too dorky and assure myself I won't forget any of the riders I'm thinking of.

Weeks later I'll stumble upon one of those riders and suddenly remember I'm planning to get him next year. Yeah I doubt I'll do that great.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
There are definitely a lot of interesting riders for next season. However, I don't think we should discuss names as the game will be a lot more interesting if noone have gotten inspiration from others - even though some names are quite obvious.

Regarding Ricco (and other dopers), I made a mistake this year. The price for previous dopers was equal to that of their last active season, which in my opinion is a mistake, as it potentially makes the price too low.

Imagine, for instance, a rider getting banned on february 1st. A couple of seasons later when he's active again, he'll be a huge scoop as his price would be equal to the points he earned that season - which isn't much as his season stopped in february. Hope you understand :)

For previous dopers, next season their price most likely will be equal to their "last full season".
If we use Riccó as an example then this season he wouldn't have cost 756 points but 1136 points. His last full season was in 2007 as his 2008, 2009 and 2010 season were all affected by his suspension.

If we use Rebellin as an example for next year, his price then will be 1807 which is equal to his last full season (2008). Valverde will cost 2494 etc.

So Thomas Dekker will cost 1000? Forget him then.

Besides I dont think it will make much of a difference, because so few are returning and those that are, already cost a lot anyway. Valverde obviously gets 2000+ because that was his last season. But even if Rebbelin only cost 675 (his current price) still no one would buy him. With Dekker one or two might chance it if hes 600 but no one will touch him if hes 1000.

The only ones I can think of who would be too cheap, possibly are Pellizoti and Tadej but then Di Luca is a similar case and he was a bit of a fail this year.
 
The Hitch said:
So Thomas Dekker will cost 1000? Forget him then.

Besides I dont think it will make much of a difference, because so few are returning and those that are, already cost a lot anyway. Valverde obviously gets 2000+ because that was his last season. But even if Rebbelin only cost 675 (his current price) still no one would buy him. With Dekker one or two might chance it if hes 600 but no one will touch him if hes 1000.

The only ones I can think of who would be too cheap, possibly are Pellizoti and Tadej but then Di Luca is a similar case and he was a bit of a fail this year.

Well it's still up to discussion and I guess we'll discuss it in the evaluation thread later, but I think the "last full season" is the most fair solution. The case with Valverde is quite different because his ban was from exactly January 1st 2010 till December 31st 2011. Imagine if his ban was from December 20th 2009 till december 20th 2011, he would practially cost nothing next season.

I have found quite a few riders who will cost practically nothing next season if the rules don't change.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Well it's still up to discussion and I guess we'll discuss it in the evaluation thread later, but I think the "last full season" is the most fair solution. The case with Valverde is quite different because his ban was from exactly January 1st 2010 till December 31st 2011. Imagine if his ban was from December 20th 2009 till december 20th 2011, he would practially cost nothing next season.

I have found quite a few riders who will cost practically nothing next season if the rules don't change.

Ya, I think that's a good idea to have dopers cost their true full season worth. It also reduces the chance of several people crippling their decks in a potential repeat of the Ricco situation. While everyone should have known about the risk of choosing Ricco it did take the wind out of the game a little by ruining a lot of teams which I don't think is good for the competition as a whole.

Other than that I don't see the need for many changes at all. A sligt adjustment in budget and team size perhaps but I think the current values are pretty close good. If anything a slightly lower budget would make for bigger diversity in teams I think.
 
ingsve said:
Ya, I think that's a good idea to have dopers cost their true full season worth. It also reduces the chance of several people crippling their decks in a potential repeat of the Ricco situation. While everyone should have known about the risk of choosing Ricco it did take the wind out of the game a little by ruining a lot of teams which I don't think is good for the competition as a whole.

Other than that I don't see the need for many changes at all. A sligt adjustment in budget and team size perhaps but I think the current values are pretty close good. If anything a slightly lower budget would make for bigger diversity in teams I think.

I agree and that's why I think that the rules should change. Also another factor is that riders getting caught for the use of doping will rarely be convicted in the same season. Take Riccó as an example. He's still not convicted and his CQ value is currently 24 where it probably will stay at the end of the season. This means that even though he's suspended his value on CQ ranking is still 24 so teams choosing Riccó this season still gets 24 points out of him. Imagine if he wasn't suspended untill September, he might have made say 500 CQ points and the teams who picked Riccó would get that amount of points.

Therefore I think it's important to deter anyone from picking, let's call them, "suspect" riders.

On team size and team value, I guess I'll use the UCI rules next season, meaning that a team must have a minimum of 23 riders and a maximum of 30. I know that the size of the team depends on the number of neo-pros but if that should be taken into account it would only make the game unnecessarily complex. The amount of points available to each team will be either 6500 or 7000 - I haven't figured that out yet.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Imagine if his ban was from December 20th 2009 till december 20th 2011, he would practially cost nothing next season.

Then under your rules he would have cost 2400 just like he does now.

Because wasnt Di Luca cleared to race in October 2010, but didnt because season was obviously over. He didnt cost 0 but his 2009 ammount instead.

I could be wrong though.

And its no coincidence that Pitis ban was exactly January 1st to December 31st;)
 
The Hitch said:
Then under your rules he would have cost 2400 just like he does now.

Because wasnt Di Luca cleared to race in October 2010, but didnt because season was obviously over. He didnt cost 0 but his 2009 ammount instead.

I could be wrong though.

And its no coincidence that Pitis ban was exactly January 1st to December 31st;)

Oh yeah, the December 20th to December 20th obviously wasn't a very good example, but then say July 20th to July 20th :)

Edit: And Di Luca. The guy is a quite complex case because when hasn't he been affected by a doping suspension? :D We have to go all the way back to 2006 to find a season where he wasn't affected by any suspension. Under these new rules that would mean that his value would be that of the 2006 season: 663 points.
Of course now his 2011 season hasn't been affected by any suspension and if it stays that way, his price in 2012 would be equivalent to his final 2011 score.
 
Nov 23, 2009
649
0
0
Visit site
I'm very tempted to make a full-blown short list of riders but have decided to wait until the season's end. I don't want to become attached to awesome picks and see them rise in price through the mid-late season and then become too expensive, yet still feel compelled to buy then in the next game due to pure attachment. I kinda feel that way about Sergey Lagutin, Geraint Thomas, Lars Boom, Thomas De Gendt and Yoann Offredo.

I support King Koblet's idea of last full season for the dopers, the creation of a CQ ranking evaluation thread. I don't mind about changing the budget or total number of riders. The game is beautiful for its simplicity.

There was one other weakness I'd like to suggest a solution for, and that was the huge dropout around Giro time of people interested. Users with crummmy teams lost interest pretty quick. My suggestion is one optional mid-season trade week, where teams who are losing interest can opt to trade riders. Trading could be a simple swap of their 2011 prices, they could incorporate their 2012 points, there could be a #points tariff per trade.

There would then become two "classifications" in the CQ ranking game: the original edition, where the original teams counted; and the mid-season trade edition, where teams had moficiations. The implementation would be simple, a second spreadsheet would need to be collated and for each update you just copy the CQ results once into each sheet. Then as Hk normally does he produces a top 10, intead this time he will produce two top 10s.
 
Nov 23, 2009
649
0
0
Visit site
We should also try and merge joy8181818181888181818111's spreadhseet into the original HK one so we can see all the stats in together
 
Update 34

Things are a bit quiet these days. Not much happened in the top of the leaderboard except Armchair cyclist took 10th place on the cost of AAC1983. nvpacchi moves up a few spots but otherwise not much happened. Perhaps it's the calm before the storm? There aren't really anyone who could be described as this weeks high jumper, so I'm just gonna leave it at the presentation of the top 10. Heck even in the bottom 14 places, only two teams swapped places.

Top 10:

1. (1) ingsve - 10987
2. (2) mc_mountain - 10355
3. (3) Waterloo Sunrise - 10276
4. (4) Handbrake - 9863
5. (9) nvpacchi - 9595
6. (7) theyoungest - 9560
7. (6) Ham-N-Eggs - 9522
8. (5) Sneekes - 9511
9. (8) Bumeington - 9500
10. (13) Armchair cyclist - 9491

Download:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O67G27EV
 
ingsve said:
Ya, I think that's a good idea to have dopers cost their true full season worth. It also reduces the chance of several people crippling their decks in a potential repeat of the Ricco situation. While everyone should have known about the risk of choosing Ricco it did take the wind out of the game a little by ruining a lot of teams which I don't think is good for the competition as a whole.

Other than that I don't see the need for many changes at all. A sligt adjustment in budget and team size perhaps but I think the current values are pretty close good. If anything a slightly lower budget would make for bigger diversity in teams I think.

I still would have picked the Cobra if he was his 2007 value :eek:
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Update 34Not much happened in the top of the leaderboard except Armchair cyclist took 10th place

Not much? NOT MUCH!!!! That is stupendous news.

bicing said:
There was one other weakness I'd like to suggest a solution for, and that was the huge dropout around Giro time of people interested.

No wish to denigrate bicing's suggested solution, but I think the key reason for the drop off in postings was not so much a fall in those in contention, but the move of the thread to another forum with far less traffic. Contributors stopped seeing the topic high in the list of the forum's contents, and its lowered profile meant that many people simply were not prompted to comment. I suspect that there will be considerably fewer entrants next season, for the same reason.


Tweaks to the method are not pressing, and those proposed seem OK. If I were to suggest a radical change, it would be to only have one team owning each rider, by having an auction, akin to what I suggested for the Tour here. Then only one rider would pick up a Cobo-esque bargain, rather than half the teams, and a Riccó style blowout would only disadvantage one person.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
Visit site
Armchair cyclist said:
No wish to denigrate bicing's suggested solution, but I think the key reason for the drop off in postings was not so much a fall in those in contention, but the move of the thread to another forum with far less traffic. Contributors stopped seeing the topic high in the list of the forum's contents, and its lowered profile meant that many people simply were not prompted to comment. I suspect that there will be considerably fewer entrants next season, for the same reason.

I wonder whether CQ also now faces more competition from other fantasy games.
 
Armchair cyclist said:
Not much? NOT MUCH!!!! That is stupendous news.



No wish to denigrate bicing's suggested solution, but I think the key reason for the drop off in postings was not so much a fall in those in contention, but the move of the thread to another forum with far less traffic. Contributors stopped seeing the topic high in the list of the forum's contents, and its lowered profile meant that many people simply were not prompted to comment. I suspect that there will be considerably fewer entrants next season, for the same reason.


Tweaks to the method are not pressing, and those proposed seem OK. If I were to suggest a radical change, it would be to only have one team owning each rider, by having an auction, akin to what I suggested for the Tour here. Then only one rider would pick up a Cobo-esque bargain, rather than half the teams, and a Riccó style blowout would only disadvantage one person.

i agree that the move to new forum was detrimental (although i think lots of people including myself, even when i was in 30s and 40s still kept track of their teams/riders) - i would suggest a locked sticky in the main forum inviting people to join the 2012 edition.
 
mc_mountain said:
i agree that the move to new forum was detrimental (although i think lots of people including myself, even when i was in 30s and 40s still kept track of their teams/riders) - i would suggest a locked sticky in the main forum inviting people to join the 2012 edition.
That would be great for the game but it wouldn't be fair to other fantasy games here. Unless this little competition of ours attracted so many forumers that it was deemed worthy of making an exception, I suppose.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
On team size and team value, I guess I'll use the UCI rules next season, meaning that a team must have a minimum of 23 riders and a maximum of 30. I know that the size of the team depends on the number of neo-pros but if that should be taken into account it would only make the game unnecessarily complex. The amount of points available to each team will be either 6500 or 7000 - I haven't figured that out yet.

I would keep it at 33 or increase the number to 35 riders. If your team has more riders it makes it more interesting to follow the game from week to week.

If we do decrease the maximum to 30 then the budget needs to be lower than 7000 since at 7000 it would actually be an increase in the average rider budget from 227 to 233. My choice would be 35 riders at 7000 points for an average of 200 points per rider.
 

TRENDING THREADS