CQ ranking

[roundabout]

I'd say lower budget and stick to 30 or 35 riders. This forces people to make harder choices.

For me personally it's easier to pick more riders on a smaller budget. Bargains are indeed easier to identify.

 

[asdfgh101]

My suggestions to add more tactical nuances and prevent people from having squads that are too similar.

1. Increase budget to 10,000 and max squad size to 39

2. Team Leaders: A squad's three 'highest paid' riders must have a value of at least 2,500

3. Neo-pros: Classified as U25 and have only raced above Cont level as a stagiare. Each squad must possess at least 3 of these riders.

As an additon to this perhaps a Neo-pro should also never have scored more than 100 points; again this would promote greater skill and result in more variety.

Like others have said the current system promotes identifying bargains in the <500 (and especially <150) bracket almost exclusively.

Also there needs to be concrete guidelines for riders returning from suspension.

How about this:

Take the value attained in the rider's last full season* in which he was free to race** and reduce this value by 20%.

*Defined as one in which he was unable to register results for no more than 8 weeks in the period from Omloop Het Nieuwsblad to Japan Cup.

**Where free necessitates that the rider was not suspended, witheld from competition pending an investigation or had results erased.

Sounds tricky but all that is required is that one person calculates the values from the small group of affected riders.

 

[ingsve]

As an additon to this perhaps a Neo-pro should also never have scored more than 100 points; again this would promote greater skill and result in more variety.

Like others have said the current system promotes identifying bargains in the <500 (and especially <150) bracket almost exclusively.

I like the idea of having certain restrictions on a smaller number of riders like that.

I think one of your suggestion then is:

Everyone has to choose at least 3 riders who have never races for a WT or pro conti team before 2012 (except as stagiaire) and have never scored more than 100 points before.

I think that sounds like a fun rule.

 

[The Hitch]

I like the idea of having certain restrictions on a smaller number of riders like that.

I think one of your suggestion then is:

Everyone has to choose at least 3 riders who have never races for a WT or pro conti team before 2012 (except as stagiaire) and have never scored more than 100 points before.

I think that sounds like a fun rule.

How about a suggestion that every team must have a certain number of riders who have tested positive for blood doping?

Oh you wouldnt be so happy about telling others who they have to pick then, would you?

How about just make your own team and fill it with as many young riders as you want?

Why must others have young riders too? Why not let us just choose our own teams.

 

[ingsve]

How about a suggestion that every team must have a certain number of riders who have tested positive for blood doping?

Oh you wouldnt be so happy about telling others who they have to pick then, would you?

How about just make your own team and fill it with as many young riders as you want?

Why must others have young riders too? Why not let us just choose are own teams.

What crawled up your ***? I was just commenting on a suggestion that I thought sounded like a fun idea.

 

[Eric8-A]

As great as the cap for more riders sound, I don't think it'll be such a good idea. If people are already saying that many teams are going to be similar with the budget we're gonna get, inmagine how much more similar they're going to be if the budget and the capacity for riders is increased.

 

[auscyclefan94]

What's the hurry? There are still more than two months till the new season starts.

As I've mentioned, I'll create an evaluation thread after Japan Cup to discuss this and next season.

Besides, it would be pretty silly to send in teams now when the season hasn't finished, all transfers aren't done and riders can still get injuried or banned.

Yes but I still think it would be nice to know the number of points and number of riders for next year asap so posters can construct teams and adjust them.

I already have 29 riders down for my 2012 team and I very much like my chances.

 

[skidmark]

As great as the cap for more riders sound, I don't think it'll be such a good idea. If people are already saying that many teams are going to be similar with the budget we're gonna get, inmagine how much more similar they're going to be if the budget and the capacity for riders is increased.

I dunno, I kind of feel like more riders = more diversity = more things to follow in the game = more fun. Budget aside, I suppose. It worked well this year, I don't feel like much has to change to have a fun and challenging game. I mean, I had 14 riders in common with ingsve, and look how much he beat me by. There's no way, if we have 33 riders, that teams are going to be so exactly alike that there will be this boring uniformity. Everyone has a different opinion of how a rider is going to develop, and the winning teams this year have some 'obvious' picks as backbones (who wouldn't take Haussler and Gerrans, Vande Velde etc?) and lots of bold picks for newer riders who did well. There aren't 33 riders who had obviously bad seasons and will have obviously better ones next year. There are probably less than 10.

I feel we need to agree on rules for returning suspended riders, but beyond that follow the outline of this year closely enough. One of the great things about this game is it's simplicity in terms of rules; feel free to pick neo-pros who haven't scored 100 points for example, but don't make it a criteria of the game, is my feeling. People who feel they know what's going on are going to pick those guys anyway.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

How about a suggestion that every team must have a certain number of riders who have tested positive for blood doping?

Oh you wouldnt be so happy about telling others who they have to pick then, would you?

How about just make your own team and fill it with as many young riders as you want?

Why must others have young riders too? Why not let us just choose are own teams.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. There shouldn't be pick requirements.

 

[will10]

Keep it simple, none of these neo rules

 

[will10]

Yes but I still think it would be nice to know the number of points and number of riders for next year asap so posters can construct teams and adjust them.

I already have 29 riders down for my 2012 team and I very much like my chances.

Chill out, you will probably have 6 weeks minimum to confirm your choices, or is that not long enough?

 

[roundabout]

Or at least allow us to wait for final WT teams to be selected.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I dunno, I kind of feel like more riders = more diversity = more things to follow in the game = more fun. Budget aside, I suppose. It worked well this year, I don't feel like much has to change to have a fun and challenging game. I mean, I had 14 riders in common with ingsve, and look how much he beat me by. There's no way, if we have 33 riders, that teams are going to be so exactly alike that there will be this boring uniformity. Everyone has a different opinion of how a rider is going to develop, and the winning teams this year have some 'obvious' picks as backbones (who wouldn't take Haussler and Gerrans, Vande Velde etc?) and lots of bold picks for newer riders who did well. There aren't 33 riders who had obviously bad seasons and will have obviously better ones next year. There are probably less than 10.

I feel we need to agree on rules for returning suspended riders, but beyond that follow the outline of this year closely enough. One of the great things about this game is it's simplicity in terms of rules; feel free to pick neo-pros who haven't scored 100 points for example, but don't make it a criteria of the game, is my feeling. People who feel they know what's going on are going to pick those guys anyway.

Maybe 35 riders / 7000 (or same as this year 7500).

 

[Eric8-A]

Maybe 35 riders / 7000 (or same as this year 7500).

That sounds good.

 

[Eric8-A]

I just added more riders to my longlist.

 

[Jancouver]

Once again I would like to suggest more buying power. If you look at the Top 10 teams this year, they all scored more than 7500 points and I feel that as a real CQ manager I should have enough buying power to build a good team and good team will cost me way over 7500 points.

I would even suggest two or even three CQ games for next year and that would give us the idea for the following year.

Game 1. 35/7500 (Same as this year)
Game 2. 40/10000 (more riders, more points)
Game 3. 30/5000 (less riders, less points)

Also it would be a good idea if we would not be discussing names and picks before the game starts on 1/1/12

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Once again I would like to suggest more buying power. If you look at the Top 10 teams this year, they all scored more than 7500 points and I feel that as a real CQ manager I should have enough buying power to build a good team and good team will cost me way over 7500 points.

I would even suggest two or even three CQ games for next year and that would give us the idea for the following year.

Game 1. 35/7500 (Same as this year)
Game 2. 40/10000 (more riders, more points)
Game 3. 30/5000 (less riders, less points)

Also it would be a good idea if we would not be discussing names and picks before the game starts on 1/1/12

dont like this.
multiple games effectively takes away something special from the game imo.

I do agree with your last sentance. Why people are discussing thier good picks I dunno.

 

[roundabout]

This year was 35 riders???

Now I feel even more stupid.

 

[hrotha]

Why people are discussing thier good picks I dunno.

Because some of us are not super competitive and we just want to have fun. In this game, you create your team and that's it. 90% of the fun comes from the discussion.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

This year was 35 riders???

Now I feel even more stupid.

No, it was 33

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Update 41

It looks as though we have a winner. Not surprisingly ingsve is still on top of the leader board as the last big and important points have been handed out. With a 447 points lead to Waterloo Sunrise in second place, ingsve seems to have secured himself the title as the winner of the first CQ Ranking Manager Game! Congratulations!

Not many points were handed out this week and we only have a single change in the top 10 as Armchair Cyclist and Kwibus swap places.

Further down the leader board Libertine Seguros loses some points as some of Muto's results have been stripped.

Only 8 teams are now in the negatives while Wiggins_fan, although in the positives, still holds on to his last place as he has done the whole game!

There is still room for improvement as the season isn't officially over, but with only minor points to be handed out, not much will change in the leader board the rest of the season.

This will be the second last update. I will make one final update once the remaining races are done - which will be around New Year.

Therefore:

A huge thanks to everyone who have taken part, followed, discussed and kept this game alive!

Top 10

1. (1) ingsve - 13897
2. (2) Waterloo Sunrise - 13450
3. (3) mc_mountain - 12670
4. (4) Handbrake - 12567
5. (5) Sneekes - 12384
6. (6) kurtinsc - 12162
7. (7) The Hitch - 12152
8. (8) LukeSchmid - 12066
9. (10) Armchair Cyclist - 12042
10. (9) Kwibus - 11997

This weeks high scorers

1. mortand - 105
2. Spider1964 - 96
3. whittashau - 78
4. al_pacino - 71
5. skidmark - 70

This weeks high jumpers

1. mortand +2
1. Parrulo +2
1. MADRAZO +2
1. roundabout +2
5. Spider1964 +1
5. al_pacino +1
5. Contre la montre +1
5. Armchair Cyclist +1
5. joy118118 +1
5. Mellow Velo +1

Download:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IUYE8KEI
http://www.crocko.com/B6B4D252389D41FCB7BBC19A2FC512D8/CQ Rankings Spreadsheet update 41.xls

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Amazed to find myself in the top ten, as this really is only my first year of following cycling closely all year round. My only ambition was top half of the table, and for half the season, even that looked optimistic.
All the more surprising, as 4 of my most expensive 5 riders all ended up in the red (ANTON HERNANDEZ Igor, RICCO Riccardo, PORTE Richie and BOLE Grega). My top scorers were all fairly popular picks (COBO ACEBO Juan Jose, WIGGINS Bradley, GERRANS , DEGENKOLB John, CUNEGO Damiano) but my proudest picks were ROJAS GIL Jose Joaquin (when I realised that one of my most expensive buys was a rider that not one other participants wanted, I thought I was destined for bottom quarter of the field), and Arnold Jeanneson, who only one other player chose, and had a 850% return. My bias towards my 2010 PCM Caisse d'Epargne squad was not as misguided as it first appeared.


Slightly jealous, as my World Tour game, based on the same principle of last year's points=this year's price, and launched before this, probably got <0.5% of the traffic, but many thanks to Hugo and the Excel wizards.

And congratulations to Ingsve, whose sig line which he has carried since the very beginning of the game looked like an arrogant stance for some time, but turns out to have been eerily prescient. How did he know?

 

[The Hitch]

Is there any realistic chance of scores changing? Looks like Kurtinic beat me by 10 points - 0.1%.

 

[will10]

Is there any realistic chance of scores changing? Looks like Kurtinic beat me by 10 points - 0.001%.

Well scores are being repaired all the time - errors cropping up in points where the results have been updated/corrected through people reporting them in the forum. So there'll still be a few minor changes I imagine.

Also there'll be some more minor points scored in the 1.2 and 2.2 races still left in the season.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Is there any realistic chance of scores changing? Looks like Kurtinic beat me by 10 points - 0.001%.

Yeah, sure there is. There are still some minor races and Tour of Hainan isn't over yet. And there's also corrections, as will10 mentioned.