• 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. Thanks!

CQ ranking

Page 53 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 1, 2010
63
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Hey your signature takes me totaly out of context:(:p

In both cases i used you as an example purely because you were first.

Also i find it brave that you decided to make your whole team australian.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure how the comment about coming last can be out of context. I have cut it back a bit now and will delete soon.
It's not brave to select all Australian's it's just motivated by the demise of Pegasus and the fact that I am most familiar with the aussie riders. I do have quite a few who could do well this year: Goss, Cam Meyer, Bobridge etc so hopefully I'll at least get my points back.:)
 
Jun 1, 2010
63
0
0
Visit site
Hugo Koblet said:
Don't worry, next year will be very different from this (in regards of discretion atleast) - I already have a few things in mind.

Let's just call this a "test" season :)

does that include non-selection of returning dopers? or at least a cq points cost of the previous full year?
 
microdose said:
Fair enough, although I'm not sure how the comment about coming last can be out of context. I have cut it back a bit now and will delete soon.
It's not brave to select all Australian's it's just motivated by the demise of Pegasus and the fact that I am most familiar with the aussie riders. I do have quite a few who could do well this year: Goss, Cam Meyer, Bobridge etc so hopefully I'll at least get my points back.:)

I didnt say you would come last. The term i used was " I wouldnt be surprised" and it was to emphasis how early in the season we still were by saying that the table could turn on its head. Had any of the others been top i would have used them instead.

And it is brave to make the team Australian. More familiar with Australians though you may be, you know enough about cycling to realise that people like Di Luca or Vande velde or Cobo or so many others, would have been good buys and you voluntarily rejected them.

Would you have picked Haussler if he had declared German citizenship though?

Hugo Koblet said:
I think definately that the rules should be different for picking dopers than they are now, yes. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but there is still a few months to do so :)

Rats. Thats my signature strategy out the window:(
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Hugo Koblet said:
I think definately that the rules should be different for picking dopers than they are now, yes. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but there is still a few months to do so :)

My vote is simply to not allow the purchase of 0 point riders next year, doper or not. If someone doped and misses the season, then they can't be picked. If they return for part of the season and have a low score... they are fair game.

But this way everyone is working off the same list (next year, the 2011 yearly point cost). This year there would have been no Di Luca or Cobo available... they weren't on the list.
 
kurtinsc said:
But this way everyone is working off the same list (next year, the 2011 yearly point cost). This year there would have been no Di Luca or Cobo available... they weren't on the list.

There's a huge diffrence between Di Luca and Cobo though. I would actually say that Cobo was on the "list". If you look at Di Luca then he does not have a score for 2010 at all:

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=26

Cobo on the other hand has a score for 2010, it just happens to be 0.

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=1861

Cobo rode a full year but he just happened to not score any points at all.

Having said that I don't think it will be a problem next year at all since I doubt that any top rider could repeat Cobos feat of not getting any points while still riding a full year.
 
Yeah Kurt, I don't know if the 'no zero' riders is a good idea; I like the 'treasure hunt' element to it, and most people wouldn't have gotten Cobo if it hadn't been mentioned.

Maybe the rule should just be that if you're picking someone coming back from suspension, you are not allowed to pick them if they didn't ride in the last calendar year.

Or, I mean, why NOT just allow people to pick returning suspended riders at a cost of zero? Everyone would have that chance and that choice, so it's not like it'd be unfair. I don't really see why they should be excluded. Hell, sign me up for Valverde next year.
 
kurtinsc said:
My vote is simply to not allow the purchase of 0 point riders next year, doper or not. If someone doped and misses the season, then they can't be picked. If they return for part of the season and have a low score... they are fair game.

But this way everyone is working off the same list (next year, the 2011 yearly point cost). This year there would have been no Di Luca or Cobo available... they weren't on the list.


I dont see 0 point riders as being as great as you make them out to be.

Most 0 point riders arent top stars and arent going to get more than a handful of points.

Moreover while their value of 0 suggests they cost nothing, they do actually cost something - a space.

The limit is 33 riders and if you take a 0 point rider that becomes 32 then 31 and so on.

I would argue that it is a much better strategy to pick 33 riders at 200 than it is to get some bigger scorers then try to compensate with some riders who cost 0 points. The 0 point riders are rarely going to get more than a handful od points.

Even if they score 50 points, then still pfff. Thats a space you have put

And those who find the Cobos (Good riders who scored 0) well chapeau to them for finding him (thanks hrotha by the way;))

So as long as there is a limit of 33 riders per team, if people want to take up spaces with 0 point riders, let them.

As for dopers, well they are a risk too. At this stage of the season, what dopers can we say have definately been a good buy. Di Luca? hes got some points but we dont know how hell do. What races will he ride. Sella? so far nothing.
Pellizoti? the most picked (doper). Doesnt even have a team.
Neither does valvajec, while Kashechkin is mostly ignored and doesnt look likely to get big points.

Ricco - well there you go. People have gone for a doper and lost out big time.
And the Ricco risk is higher for all dopers you choose.

The successful riders so far have all been none dopers. And of course the most picked (and likely success) rider has been Haussler.
 
skidmark said:
Hell, sign me up for Valverde next year.

Ya, he'll be something that needs to be dealt with next year. Either he will be on all teams or on no teams and having him on all teams just doesn't make any sense other than inflating the scores so it would make more sense to just ban him. Or make him cost 2500 points since that's what he earned the last season he rode.
 
The Hitch said:
Since Hugo counted riders based on their previous score, Valverde will be worth 2500 points next year, exactly 1/3rd of your budget, so feel free to sign him up.

Well yes, but the first part of my paragraph that you quoted said "Or, I mean, why NOT just allow people to pick returning suspended riders at a cost of zero? Everyone would have that chance and that choice, so it's not like it'd be unfair. I don't really see why they should be excluded. Hell, sign me up for Valverde next year."

Either way, I was joking to show the point that it would maybe be more complicated than I had just said it would be.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
To those who don't like my idea... it was just a suggestion.

The point I was making is that there is a downloadable list for the year with how many points scored. If you look at the list, it will have about 3000-3500 names on it... all the riders who scored at least one point.

If we went just with that list... there would be no question about how much dopers would cost (like there was this year where you had to navigate through a bunch of thread posts to realize Di Luca's cost). There would be a single list with the cost of riders. We could download the file as of a certain date... say the first update in december. That would be our costs for the game.

It's more a matter of ease of administration as opposed to "fairness" or anything. One list. One set of prices. No special rules. No riders not on the list allowed.
 
I'm sure we'll all have some ideas for game tweaks for next year by the time the season ends. We can probably do a whole thread on it in November and Hugo can be final judge and jury. It will be a good way to help get through the off season, at least.

An early thought I had for dopers coming off suspension was to take their last full season total and subtract 35% (or some other amount tbd) and make that their value.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
But why not? If people want to waste one of their 33 spots on a rider who costs 0, what is the harm in letting them?

It's not a matter of harm. Just ease of administration. It's simpler to administer if you have a set list that everyone picks off of. Sure, we can allow teams to pick Joe Smith, the local rider for some masters team who has little chance of ever scoring a point... but if you had a 100 teams each doing that the administration starts to get very annoying.
 
Ferminal said:
Maybe a rule where half your riders under a certain point range (<50 or <100 or <200?) have to be Under 25 or something. There needs to be a strong element of picking talents not some experienced guy who we all know had a bad season.

Only 3 guys were picked by more than 50% of people. None of those were under 50 and the most picked one (haussler) wasnt even under 200.

So i think most riders picked under 50 points were already under 25. So i dont see what you achieve by bringing in this random rule (where do you get 50% from?).

We arent pro tour teams (where bringing in under 25 year olds helps to lay the foundation of the future bla bla bla). this is just a game.

The way Hugo made it the first time, is the best. No random rules regarding who you can or cannot pick based on technicalities.

Just pick between 25 and 33 riders whose total score adds up to 7500 or less. Simple:)
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Only 3 guys were picked by more than 50% of people. None of those were under 50 and the most picked one (haussler) wasnt even under 200.

So i think most riders picked under 50 points were already under 25. So i dont see what you achieve by bringing in this random rule (where do you get 50% from?).

We arent pro tour teams (where bringing in under 25 year olds helps to lay the foundation of the future bla bla bla). this is just a game.

The way Hugo made it the first time, is the best. No random rules regarding who you can or cannot pick based on technicalities.

Just pick between 25 and 33 riders whose total score adds up to 7500 or less. Simple:)

I tend to agree as to keeping it simple... the only non-simple part was riders who had "made up" costs... essentially a doper returning like Di Luca.

To me, the answer is to either have the 0 point riders cost 0, even if they are a returning doper... or not allow the selection of 0 point riders. I think the latter makes the initial set up easier for the person running things which is why I lean that way, but I'm okay either way. I just want to avoid special rules for the cost of special riders.
 
It's merely a suggestion to those who are concerned about too many obvious "bargain" picks be they dopers or otherwise. If you look through the teams most of the selections under 100 points and actually very well known names. Any artificial restrictions should increase the skill margin rather than decreasing it.
 
I'm glad to see some discussion going on - it just shows that a lot of people are enthusiastic about the game.

I think it's still too early to draw any conclusions as to whether the rules for returning dopers should be changed - after all we're still only 17 seconds into the season right? :)

If anything, those picking returning dopers have been the losers so far.

Let's wait and see untill the season closes in if anything should be changed. By november I'll make an evaluation thread in which we can discuss any suggestions about the game. I'll also be needing a person to help me out with some practical stuff next season (help updating as I'll be on a vacation for a few months and help me with any rulings) - so if anyone's interested, you can start thinking about that already :)
 
Hugo Koblet said:
I'm glad to see some discussion going on - it just shows that a lot of people are enthusiastic about the game.

I think it's still too early to draw any conclusions as to whether the rules for returning dopers should be changed - after all we're still only 17 seconds into the season right? :)

If anything, those picking returning dopers have been the losers so far.

Let's wait and see untill the season closes in if anything should be changed. By november I'll make an evaluation thread in which we can discuss any suggestions about the game. I'll also be needing a person to help me out with some practical stuff next season (help updating as I'll be on a vacation for a few months and help me with any rulings) - so if anyone's interested, you can start thinking about that already :)

Be careful, simplicity is a great virtue.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
The game is good as is. My only suggestion would be to have set number or riders. I would go with 25 or 30 riders per team. If 30 was the number, I would increase the buying power to 10K points. That would give us more opportunities to pick better riders and the game would be more exciting.

Just my 0.02
 

TRENDING THREADS