The 2015 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[skidmark]

you know, this has got me thinking about how to deal with this in future years, and here is a possibility - let's say there was a penalty for late entries. 300 points if your team is late at all, plus 10 points more off for every hour after the deadline or something like that. This would not exclude people who make an honest mistake and forget, or if you waited until the last minute but had internet trouble or something, but it would not just have no consequence whatsoever. And it would make the notion of looking at teams and then picking even stupider than it already is, because if you do the work, there's no way it'd be worth it to take a 300-plus penalty to have the advantage of looking at teams. Anyway, I was just thinking what they do to football teams who are delinquent (relegation and point penalization are common), and that seems to make sense to me, so that we have some standards in advance and don't have these ad-hoc discussions every year. I don't want the straits to be so dire, like you're a few hours late so you can't participate, and I also recognize that it can be frustrating to work to get something in at the rules-dictated deadline and then see someone skate on in late without consequence. Something like this may bridge that gap.

 

[Hugo87]

Just get Panda into the game and move on, if he indeed took advantage of some teams and popular picks before his team submission, conscience will strike back at some point and that will be enough punishment.

I prefer to believe that people tend to be sincere and not the opposite.

 

[Jancouver]

you know, this has got me thinking about how to deal with this in future years, and here is a possibility - let's say there was a penalty for late entries. 300 points if your team is late at all, plus 10 points more off for every hour after the deadline or something like that. This would not exclude people who make an honest mistake and forget, or if you waited until the last minute but had internet trouble or something, but it would not just have no consequence whatsoever. And it would make the notion of looking at teams and then picking even stupider than it already is, because if you do the work, there's no way it'd be worth it to take a 300-plus penalty to have the advantage of looking at teams. Anyway, I was just thinking what they do to football teams who are delinquent (relegation and point penalization are common), and that seems to make sense to me, so that we have some standards in advance and don't have these ad-hoc discussions every year. I don't want the straits to be so dire, like you're a few hours late so you can't participate, and I also recognize that it can be frustrating to work to get something in at the rules-dictated deadline and then see someone skate on in late without consequence. Something like this may bridge that gap.

Skidmark,
I cant even believe that you are considering some kind of late submission rules and penalties. While I dont have anything personal against Panda or anyone else, its just wrong and you are just sending out a negative message to all the players.

Either set the rules and follow the rules, or forget it. As someone else said, what about the guys that missed the deadline and didnt even consider to send the team after the deadline as they thought the rules are enforced?

 

[Jancouver]

Lots of those riders were fairly popular. Besides, there are like 30-40 "top" picks compared to thousands of riders in the CQ Ranking. The sheer number disprecancy between the number of top picks and the rarer ones means that it's obvious that rare picks are going to feature prominently on the optimal team. Yes, popular riders tend to do better because they usually are bargains but they are not immune to illness, crashes, bad luck, bad form, playing second fiddle to another rider on their team, being Andy Schleck or anything else that can ruin a season. On the other hand, from a pool of hundreds of riders there are always a few who will exceed all expectations. For instance, Van Genechten, Zakarin, Davidenyok, Jans and Baugnies weren't picked at all last year because there was no evidence to suggest they could have the kind of season they ended up having. I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here.

For me the game starts with the first race of the season so as long as a team is entered before then I have no issue with it. I get that some people might not like that Panda Claws might have looked at other teams but I have no problem believing him/her if he/she says she didn't look at the other teams. Even if he/she did, you still have to make the right selections. In 2011, ingsve won despite being part of the early entries and not seeing other teams whereas the majority of the entrants could have looked at those early entries if they wished to do so. In fact many people posted their teams in the thread so not looking at other eams was pretty much impossible and yet ingsve won regardless. Guess what, the riders that are selected, are also listed on CQ*. There are no picks that magically appear in the spreadsheet, all riders are already on CQ so anyone building his/her team carefully is aware of existence of the riders that have been selected by other teams. He/She then decide whether or not to include those riders (and the choice is the same whether are not you have looked at other teams). The key to this game is not looking at other teams. It is a sound decision process and a large amount of luck.

* The exception being 0-pointer who are harder to find but Panda Claws is a veteran of the game so I believe he/she knows is aware of the existence of such picks. Actually looking at Panda Claws' 2014 team there are no 0-pointers so maybe he/she doesn't know how to find them. Perhaps if people really want to enforce a sanction on Panda Claws, then not allowing 0-pointers in his/her team is the fairest way to go about it.

I agree. Main reason I posted the list was to show that you dont need all the popular riders to pick a good rider and personally I would consider many riders that I dont have just because I thought they would be more popular therefore having a good rider that was mostly overlooked would be an unfair advantage regardless of the rider's success.

 

[ItalianGigolo]

First point from Elia Favilli in Vuelta a Tachira! I think he is pretty rare so I hope he can continue scoring all season long. I think Southwest team is a perfect fit for him. With Porte and Durbridge too in my team I can say I'm pretty pleased with my start.

 

[Kazistuta]

As a player earlier allowed to play a CQ game (in 2012 I think), despite submitting my team too late (before any racing),I support skidmarks decision.

Make the deadline the same day as the first race next year and you'll avoid this discussion. People will still discuss and reveal their teams after the Australian TT championship, so IMO no need to have a "gap" after the deadline.

Let's see if this is a problem next year. Btw. no one so far has expressed frustration that they respected the deadline and refrained from submitting their teams. So there might not be any

 

[Handbrake]

After making a bazillion changes to balance my team I ended up with a rider twice, picked up the mistake within 24 hours, I let Skidmark know and just assumed my team would have to be a 32 rider team for the year. My mistake so too bad for me. Hope I don't end up close to winning it! The rider I had twice was Damien Howson.

We all play for fun (I think), to increase our enjoyment throughout the season following more races and riders than we normally would so include him in the updates.

I think Panda Claws plays with an asterix. No acceptance speech if he wins.

Enjoy the racing season.

 

[Panda Claws]

To respond to some of the issues raised in regard to me participating:

*I am perfectly fine to play with an asterisk (*), but I do feel that I should still be allowed to participate. Of course, should I be late again next year, it is only natural to expect me to put in the scores manually on my own. Still, why I am in no position to complain about it too much, I would find it odd if an asterisk was added, because it looks too much like cheating.
*I did not cheat and deliberately sent in a late entry. First, if I recall correctly there are A LOT of good picks shared in this thread before the game even starts. Keeping that in mind, there is not a whole lot of additional benefit to be gained from submitting a team late.
Second, I have never consciously watched this thread to get picks from it. If I had I would have made my team both this (and last) year look more like 'The Hitch' or Will10's or something, who usually do well.
Third, I forgot to put in 0-pointers, and only put in 32 riders (actually my 33rd was Kevin De Weert who I doubt was the best pick, but with him included I had 7.503 points because I miscounted so he was removed). Actually, I have forgotten to do this before, because I mostly play this for fun so my method of finding cyclists is just to start at the 1500th or so rider of the previous season and take all riders I find to have potentiaL

I think that you'll find that it is unlikely that I was deliberately late in order to cheat (I also have a file about this game made 18/12/2014, but those dates can prob.be changed I guess).

You can still argue that 'rules are rules' and we cannot set a precedent. Everything I say about that will seem biased because of the position I am in at right now, but I feel that there should be a difference in treatment between those who were late and seemed to gain an advantage off of it, and those who made a mistake. Concerning the latter, and provided they are not so late that there have already been 1 or more official updates, I feel that they should get a warning/mark first, before being ommited from playing the second time.
The only questionable pick I have, is Richie Porte, because I saw that he had won the Aussie TT's and that made me think of this game and made me remember to submit my team. I want to stress, however, that Richie Porte was already on my team prior to that.

Of course, I'll leave it up to other people who have played this game before to decide what needs to be done.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Make the deadline the same day as the first race next year and you'll avoid this discussion.

Exactly. It would be best to set the deadline the minute the Australian TT starts, IMO. No confusion that way. The arguments for an earlier deadline weren't convincing to me.

 

[Roude Leiw]

Hi all,

when i first saw this, I was more inclined to follow Jancouvers line. As there seems to have been a precedent, I would say let him in, the more the merrier. Moving deadlines won't change a thing, there will always people who will be late (believe me, i work in project management, there are always people late, whatever the deadlines)

Pat

 

[NairoQ]

I would like to put Porte into my team; even before he won the Australian TT. Just because so many people picked him, I felt like I missed out on something. So, if I could make a change, I'd do that.

The same way, you can have an advantage when sending in late.
But really, would one do that? Would one include a rider in his team he only picked because lots of people thought he was good, and afterwards ask his team to be able to join? I don't think so.

Well, maybe (surely) some people might do this in order to gain 'respect' from others. But why don't we just hope for a minute that that's not true, let him join the game and stop discussing this? Even if he wins; I wouldn't think "Okay, he cheated." The odds are there, but I don't like thinking about them since it's just a game, and I think the atmosphere is already getting worse here because of all this complaining (could be just because I feel like Porte will ruin it for me ). So no need for a * I think.

(Even though I would put "Winner of the 2015 CQ Ranking Game" in my subscript if I came second after him )

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I think it's fine to let Panda join. I mean, there have been late entrants every single year and it hasn't changed a thing. The first year, the first 25 teams who entered were even published for everyone else to see and I don't think it changed much.

That said, I do support the suggestion that next year's deadline is the same day as the first race of the season. Then there's nothing to be mistaken about.

 

[LaFlorecita]

But really, would one do that? Would one include a rider in his team he only picked because lots of people thought he was good, and afterwards ask his team to be able to join? I don't think so.

This is vital. I don't think anyone would cheat to gain an advantage in a simple internet game. I mean, surely their conscience wouldn't let them.

On another forum I did the updates for a cycling game that involved predicting the top 5 for each stage of a WT race. At some point I was just a few points away from first place. I could have changed some earlier predictions to give me just a couple more points. No one would have noticed. But I didn't. That's just not a cool thing to do. I'd like to think most people participating in online cycling games feel that way.

(In the end I lost because I forgot the predict ahead when I went on vacation)

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

After Howson's 17 points, now Favilli scores a point in Venezuela!1

Looking at my startlist for TDU, I won't make it anywhere near the top 100 before the European season starts.

 

[mc_mountain]

As Flo said I have accepted teams late for the youth game. I tend to use the words - 'I will add the team to the spreadsheet'

The reality is that when I submit my team to skidmark to play this game, I accept him as the person who will decide on all matters relating to the game and it disappoints me that he is being criticised for making reasonable decisions (which the majority seem to be happy with). Skidmark did a fantastic job taking over from Hugo and both know how much effort it takes to make the game happen.

In my view an asterix is unnecessary - if Panda Claws team does well enough for it to be an issue, I anticipate he will feel obliged to acknowledge his late submission. Of course if skidmark feels it is necessary then I accept his decision The game works both as a competition against many but also a competition against yourself - can I make a good profit on predicting riders doing better in 2015 than they did in 2014 - and the spreadsheet is a tool to track this it seems petty to prevent Panda Claws being able to do that.

Moving the deadline to closer to the start of the season is problematic in my view, as it means there is no grace period. If I thought people could resist revealing their teams I would be inclined to have the spreadsheet kept under wraps until closer to the start of the season but still have the deadline a couple of days before. This allows for late submissions without this issue - but I suspect people will post their teams.

---

Skidmark - do you have people willing and ready to help with updates?

 

[cineteq]

I am perfectly fine to play with an asterisk (*), but I do feel that I should still be allowed to participate. Of course, should I be late again next year, it is only natural to expect me to put in the scores manually on my own. Still, why I am in no position to complain about it too much, I would find it odd if an asterisk was added, because it looks too much like cheating.

Ha ha you're not helping your own cause, your should've said nothing

Let Panda Claws in. But penalize him with no rank. Meaning he'll participate and see his stats but he will not be competing with the rest of us who followed the rules.

PS: Panda, understand this is not personal, I like you a lot!

 

[Netserk]

Let's try to have a game discussion.

Having seen (some of) the other teams, what would you (generic) have done differently?

What team do you think is the favourite (other than your own) for the win?





I think it might have been better if I had one more of the big four instead of just Froome alone. Of the other three I think Purito is the best pick. I'm starting to think that Simon Yates will be a good pick, so I regret a little that I didn't include him.

 

[Geraint Too Fast]

Back to the game.

I really wanted to pick Favilli this year, but I think there's too much sprint competition at Farnese-Neri-YellowFluo-Southeast-Whatever (Andriato, Belletti, Bertazzo, Fedi, Finetto, Gavazzi, Mareczko, Petacchi, Ponzi, Wackermann) + his mentor Scinto is gone.

 

[Jancouver]

To respond to some of the issues raised in regard to me participating:

*I am perfectly fine to play with an asterisk (*), but I do feel that I should still be allowed to participate. Of course, should I be late again next year, it is only natural to expect me to put in the scores manually on my own. Still, why I am in no position to complain about it too much, I would find it odd if an asterisk was added, because it looks too much like cheating.
*I did not cheat and deliberately sent in a late entry. First, if I recall correctly there are A LOT of good picks shared in this thread before the game even starts. Keeping that in mind, there is not a whole lot of additional benefit to be gained from submitting a team late.
Second, I have never consciously watched this thread to get picks from it. If I had I would have made my team both this (and last) year look more like 'The Hitch' or Will10's or something, who usually do well.
Third, I forgot to put in 0-pointers, and only put in 32 riders (actually my 33rd was Kevin De Weert who I doubt was the best pick, but with him included I had 7.503 points because I miscounted so he was removed). Actually, I have forgotten to do this before, because I mostly play this for fun so my method of finding cyclists is just to start at the 1500th or so rider of the previous season and take all riders I find to have potentiaL

I think that you'll find that it is unlikely that I was deliberately late in order to cheat (I also have a file about this game made 18/12/2014, but those dates can prob.be changed I guess).

You can still argue that 'rules are rules' and we cannot set a precedent. Everything I say about that will seem biased because of the position I am in at right now, but I feel that there should be a difference in treatment between those who were late and seemed to gain an advantage off of it, and those who made a mistake. Concerning the latter, and provided they are not so late that there have already been 1 or more official updates, I feel that they should get a warning/mark first, before being ommited from playing the second time.
The only questionable pick I have, is Richie Porte, because I saw that he had won the Aussie TT's and that made me think of this game and made me remember to submit my team. I want to stress, however, that Richie Porte was already on my team prior to that.

Of course, I'll leave it up to other people who have played this game before to decide what needs to be done.

"*I am perfectly fine to play with an asterisk (*)"
So you are fine with an asterisk? Good to know!

"but I do feel that I should still be allowed to participate"
Its funny how these days, especially the younger generation (not sure how old are you but in general), feels entitled to special privileges and special treatments and has no respect for rules, traditions and others.

Sorry Panda, whether the Admin decide to include you or not is meaningless at this point but you have shown no character or class and instead of showing some humbleness you come in with arrogant reasons why you should be included.

I will no longer comment on Panda as it is slowly turning against me just because I raised my concerns regarding the game rules a and principals.

I hope the organizers will keep Panda out of all updates.

Back to the game:

I hope Turbo Durbo, Cam Meyer and Flakemore will go 1,2,3 at the Aussie RR tonight

 

[Kazistuta]

I have a general approach not to include riders above 1000 points, even though this year we had four big names with potential to score 1000 more in 2015.

When I saw how many picked one or more of these, I got afraid my choice was not the best approach this season. But I feel Uran has just as good a chance as these four to hit the +2000 barrier , and seing as he was under 1000 last year + only four other members picked him, I'm still hopeful of the outcome. I would have loved to include Sagan,as he is a personal favorite, but alas...

After seing the rider popularity ranking I'm also having second thoughts about including:

Sam Bennett - Isn't his point ceiling way higher than 2014? (might have picked Chaves or Boom in the same points range)

Igor Anton - As stated in an earlier post, I thought he would be picked by many again this year, but did not....is he never going to return to his Vuelta form from 2010? (D. Quintana, Rosa & Blythe could be replacements)

Matej Mohoric - Dominant as U23, invisible as first-year pro. Nikita Novikov II? (Hoogerland & Gaudin might be better options)

Fredrik Ludvigsson - Didn't know about his injury. (same as above).

I am not ready to predict any favorites, a lot of teams without obvious "no-go's". I haven't looked at all teams yet. I see some teams published in this thread with absolutely no chance of winning, though

 

[LaFlorecita]

This made me laugh

I haven't seen any riders I wish I'd included. Well, maybe I would've liked to find a spot for Wellens. But I'm happy with my team as it is. It won't win the game for me, I won't finish top 10 either, top 50 is a stretch but I will have fun following these 33 riders

 

[del1962]

Let's try to have a game discussion.

Having seen (some of) the other teams, what would you (generic) have done differently?

What team do you think is the favourite (other than your own) for the win?





I think it might have been better if I had one more of the big four instead of just Froome alone. Of the other three I think Purito is the best pick. I'm starting to think that Simon Yates will be a good pick, so I regret a little that I didn't include him.

I had Simon Yates down as well but removed him for Kudus, perhaps this was a mistake, I also missed out on an interesting zero pointer Dan McConnell that I don't think anyone picked, a mountainbiker who has joined Trek at 29 years of age, he is in my youth team, but didn't pick up on him until team submitted.

I think my weakness will be some of my low budget picks.

Anyway I see that 2 people scored a couple of points for James Oram in the NZ TT.

 

[NairoQ]

Dear Jancouver,

This is a game, so please don't try to make it that big of a matter and just don't call people classless/respectless, since I'm pretty sure he just wants to join the game because he likes to play it. Also, stop trying to force the organisation in a certain direction. If you have any respect for the work they put into this, it really is their call to make.

But I feel Uran has just as good a chance as these four to hit the +2000 barrier , and seing as he was under 1000 last year + only four other members picked him, I'm still hopeful of the outcome. I would have loved to include Sagan,as he is a personal favorite, but alas...

Do you really think Uran can score as much as Sagan/Froome/Quintana? I do agree that his lower bound, as somebody called it, is certainly not to low, but I didn't see anything last year or another year that made me believe he can do as well as the guys mentioned above, let alone do better than them. But he's a lot cheaper, that's true, I considered him as well. Just don't think he can score 2000+, I don't see where that would happen.

 

[Netserk]

I see Uran as a better pick next year with the OGRR suiting him well. I doubt he will score more this year than last year with his schedule (Giro-Tour), as I don't see him improving points-wise in the Giro and I think he'll be dead in the Tour. He'll probably do better in the fall classics though.

 

[Jancouver]

Dear Jancouver,

This is a game, so please don't try to make it that big of a matter and just don't call people classless/respectless, since I'm pretty sure he just wants to join the game because he likes to play it. Also, stop trying to force the organisation in a certain direction. If you have any respect for the work they put into this, it really is their call to make.



Do you really think Uran can score as much as Sagan/Froome/Quintana? I do agree that his lower bound, as somebody called it, is certainly not to low, but I didn't see anything last year or another year that made me believe he can do as well as the guys mentioned above, let alone do better than them. But he's a lot cheaper, that's true, I considered him as well. Just don't think he can score 2000+, I don't see where that would happen.

"he just wants to join the game because he likes to play it."
LOL

"stop trying to force the organisation in a certain direction"
Forcing direction? Dear NairoQ, I'm not forcing anything, I just voiced my opinion regarding rules of this game, that's all.

"don't call people classless/respectless"
As per calling names, please re-read my previous post where I stated "you have shown no character or class". Sorry that is not calling names. Calling names is below my own standards so I will not degrade myself to that level so please stop putting words in my mouth.