The 2013 CQ Ranking Manager Game

[LaFlorecita]

Oops Louis Meintjes 6 points already in Rwanda

 

[Cyivel]

Think it might be 8 eek:) as he's leading the race after winning today!

 

[R_O_Shipman]

thanks to hugo for running the game. Already looking forward to next year. I only joined the forum to play the CQ game and have enjoyed lurking over the updates even if I didn't do very well.

Just a quick question about points going into next year - if a rider has had a year off the bike, not because of doping suspension, then what is his total? 0 points or his last active season?

sure you can work out who I'm thinking of including!

 

[skidmark]

thanks to hugo for running the game. Already looking forward to next year. I only joined the forum to play the CQ game and have enjoyed lurking over the updates even if I didn't do very well.

Just a quick question about points going into next year - if a rider has had a year off the bike, not because of doping suspension, then what is his total? 0 points or his last active season?

sure you can work out who I'm thinking of including!

It would be zero points.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Time may have come for the 2014 thread to start, but MCM has the right to make first post. Can I raise a couple of issues about about the price of riders who had a suspension during 2013.

General principle: If suspended for any part of 2013, price for the 2014 game is the riders score from the last year unaffected by suspension. That now seems well established.

But:
Is there any discretion in the case of very short suspensions? (I am aware of a rider suspended only until 7th January, so his 2013 season was entirely unaffected)

Did we introduce a 'Rui Costa clause'? This would amount to "If application of the above rule makes a rider cheaper, it is not applied."

 

[mc_mountain]

Time may have come for the 2014 thread to start, but MCM has the right to make first post. Can I raise a couple of issues about about the price of riders who had a suspension during 2013.

General principle: If suspended for any part of 2013, price for the 2014 game is the riders score from the last year unaffected by suspension. That now seems well established.

But:
Is there any discretion in the case of very short suspensions? (I am aware of a rider suspended only until 7th January, so his 2013 season was entirely unaffected)

Did we introduce a 'Rui Costa clause'? This would amount to "If application of the above rule makes a rider cheaper, it is not applied."

Actually it looks likely that it will be skidmark who makes the opening post for the 2014 thread - still some prep to be done, so likely to be in early December.

I think the general rule in any doping situation is the last season unaffected by suspension, unless there is more expensive season since (ie Rui Costa).

I think I would favour maintaining that rule, but I know there will be others that would argue against.

 

[skidmark]

Actually it looks likely that it will be skidmark who makes the opening post for the 2014 thread - still some prep to be done, so likely to be in early December.

I think the general rule in any doping situation is the last season unaffected by suspension, unless there is more expensive season since (ie Rui Costa).

I think I would favour maintaining that rule, but I know there will be others that would argue against.

Yep, there's been a bit of chat behind the scenes and we're hoping to get the new thread for the new game up about a month before points start getting doled out, so some time before December 10th. Inboxes and spreadsheets need to be made ready, and a couple of other things. It's coming...

re: suspended riders, I think Hugo has developed a pretty clear approach over the 3 years of this thread - it's the last unaffected season (ie. calendar year for which the rider was not suspended for any days at all), unless the rider has had a better season since then (that was to override the 'Costa clause' that made a rider cheaper for being suspended, same as Pippo this year). So yes, your mystery rider would cost the 2011 cost, since his suspension was from 7 Jan 2012-7 Jan 2013.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Damn I forgot about that ban not cool

 

[Armchair cyclist]

So yes, your mystery rider would cost the 2011 cost, since his suspension was from 7 Jan 2012-7 Jan 2013.

No, he was only suspended for 3 months up to 7 Jan 2013, so his 2012 and 2013 CQ scores were both entirely unaffected by the ban. But he certainly is not good value at his 2011 score.

 

[mc_mountain]

No, he was only suspended for 3 months up to 7 Jan 2013, so his 2012 and 2013 CQ scores were both entirely unaffected by the ban. But he certainly is not good value at his 2011 score.

Its a difficult one. comparison would be scarponi in 2013, who I believe wasnt available at his 2012 score for a similar ban.

 

[Ferminal]

Should be fine unless his team was invited to that random Brazilian race in the first week of January (same for 2012 too)... Pozzato was "banned" during the season so missed plenty of raceable days.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Its a difficult one. comparison would be scarponi in 2013, who I believe wasnt available at his 2012 score for a similar ban.

And the USADA whistle blowers had bans that were (by design?) of minimal impact. The non-controversial route is to be totally black and white about it, which to be honest is probably what I would suggest, but just wondering whether it is generally felt that this is the best course.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

And the USADA whistle blowers had bans that were (by design?) of minimal impact. The non-controversial route is to be totally black and white about it, which to be honest is probably what I would suggest, but just wondering whether it is generally felt that this is the best course.

It's a rule that's already in place. I'd have picked Scarponi over Evans if it wasn't.

Okay, not much of a difference, as it turned out, but this time it has the benefit of eliminating a would-be popular (boring) pick, Giovanni Visconti, from the game. For that reason alone I'm in favor. Otherwise I really don't care. I don't think anyone has finalized their team at this point.

 

[LaFlorecita]

What is wrong with popular picks? They're always a few popular picks in the game.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

What is wrong with popular picks? They're always a few popular picks in the game.

Nothing wrong them per se, but it got a bit ridiculous this year with everyone and their momma having the same riders on their team. In the end, though, no one did great. Many of those riders didn't do much.

OTOH, not one person had both Froome and Porte. They were hardly picked at all, IIRC.

 

[skidmark]

No, he was only suspended for 3 months up to 7 Jan 2013, so his 2012 and 2013 CQ scores were both entirely unaffected by the ban. But he certainly is not good value at his 2011 score.

Oh whoops, I was thinking (without checking) of a rider that, it ends up, was actually suspended for a year from 31 Jan 2012-31 Jan 2013, the date of the 7th stuck in my mind because that was around when the case emerged in 2012. Either way, the point I was trying to make is the same. I'm inclined to think the simplest way is to be black and white about it, though, even though his season was unaffected. Food for thought.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Poor Geraint Too Fast

 

[Geraint Too Fast]

I'm not bothered.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I'm not bothered.

I would be if I were you

 

[Geraint Too Fast]

I would be if I were you

I think any frustration I had was used up by Van Emden.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I think any frustration I had was used up by Van Emden.

Fair enough lol

 

[greenedge]

Nothing wrong them per se, but it got a bit ridiculous this year with everyone and their momma having the same riders on their team. In the end, though, no one did great. Many of those riders didn't do much.

OTOH, not one person had both Froome and Porte. They were hardly picked at all, IIRC.

10 characters

 

[Lortnoc]

Although I hardly post on the forum I enjoy the game very much.

So many thanks to Hugo and everyone else putting in hard work organizing the game!

Hope there will be a 2014 edition.

 

[skidmark]

Although I hardly post on the forum I enjoy the game very much.

So many thanks to Hugo and everyone else putting in hard work organizing the game!

Hope there will be a 2014 edition.

Don't worry Lortnoc and everyone, there'll be a 2014 edition. Opening post to come within a week to ten days.

One thing I'm struggling with is the submission of teams. Hugo has processed them through PM in the last 2 years and that won't be a problem for me, but he has also submitted a team, usually to the first person who submits their team, I think.

The problem is that I have no interest in submitting a team that soon. Not only am I not ready to do so, but tinkering with my team and second and third guessing it until January is part of the process that I really enjoy. So, there are 2 things I've thought of that might mitigate that issue.

1) I send my provisional team to the first person who sends theirs. I can have at least 20 riders who are for sure, and then maybe a pool of 30 other riders I'm considering slotting in the last 13 places.

2) A third party who enters early can volunteer to have the teams sent to them; I'm happy to make the spreadsheet and process all the teams, but maybe I could commit to finishing my team by January 1st, and I'd still have a week to do all that.

Other suggestions are welcome. We can possibly find a halfway measure.

I'm fine with #1, because I know that I am not going to use other people's teams to look for a competitive advantage. I'm just not going to do that. I have a good pedigree in this game, so I'm sure most people believe that. Still, there's just a process problem with that, like if I was in a tight race for the lead next year and it was even a possibility that I looked at other people's teams before submitting my own, it would be a problem. Promises don't mean much on the internet, so no doubt someone would doubt it. So it might be best just to cut that off by not having the chance of me looking at them at all.

Just wanted to get people's thoughts about this, because I've only talked to emcee about it.

 

[mc_mountain]

Just so my thoughts are in the thread...

I think #1 is probably the way to go - (maybe the first person that knows they arent going to change their team, rather than the first person). I cant see there being any satisfaction for someone who has already won the game once, to win again by trying to take advantage of knowledge of other teams. Also choosing all the popular riders is not always key to winning the game anyway. It might be worth aiming for the 1st for confirmation of your team though, as potentially a lot of teams will submit after that anyway, and if someone is wary of giving away a super secret pick, they could submit after that?

#2 I think has too many practical issues, and puts too much pressure of the data input.

Lortnoc - making sure take on the challenge of the two other long term games Youth and Emerging Riders - .