The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[Hakkie2]

My goal for next year will be to take the lead in the average placement competition! I have an average of 16 now after 2 participations.

 

[fauniera]

Thanks everyone! And thanks to skidmark and all the other guys who did updates.

Looking forward to 2018. I already have way too many names that i want to cram into my team.

 

[GP Blanco]

Happy to have made the podium. I never expected this to happen at the beginning of the year.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I'm waiting to see Squire on Mastermind; specialist round "CQ game data, 2011 to date"

 

[Gigs_98]

Thank you very much Skidmark for organizing this once again great game. Also thanks to Squire for the actually quite interesting trivia.

I'm quite happy with my 16th place this year. I honestly didn't expect to be so high up in the rankings after failing completely in my first participation last year. That said, I'm not 100% satisfied since I was 3rd overall around halfway through the season, but lost some ground in the 2nd half. Especially when Teuns scored a lot of points after the tour it was always horrible to see that your riders actually make quite a lot of points but still you go down in the rankings because of missing one rider. Now I just hope to improve even further next year.

 

[barmaher]

finishing in the top 20 in this comprehensive game is no mean feat. Thanks all, and congrats to the winner![/url]

I would have said anybody in the top 21 did well.

 

[Netserk]

It's a bit too early to tell, as both Gaviria and Ewan will race the Tour of Guangxi.

Indeed. The popular combo ended up 10 points ahead. Guess my post counts as an example of celebrating too early, eh?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Average placement (3+ participations)
Rank, name, (no. of participations), average placement
1 (-) Geraint Too Fast (6) 16,2
2 (+1) The Hitch (5) 16,4
3 (-1) skidmark (7) 21
4 (+2) Kazistuta (7) 23
5 (-) gustienordic (4) 24
6 (+5) Squire (5) 25
7 (-) Nyssinator (3) 26
8 (+1) Cykeltyven (3) 27
9 (+1) bicing (4) 28
10 (+2) TeoSheva (3) 30

Geraint Too Consistent keeps his lead in the average placements. skidmark's bad season sees him drop behind The Hitch. Sometimes it can help your standings if you don't participate, it seems.

Haha yeah, Skidmark is the 2 time champion (+1 time runner up), all time leader and only slightly below me on this list despite more participations so I tip my hat to him. If i had participated last 2 years, no way I would have come close to a 16th overall average.
Skidmark is truly the king of the cq game and second head next to Hugo Koblet on the CQ Mount Rushmore

Still I look back on that with pride. Even though the first year was less people, I can't have been too bad at this cycling thing to maintain that over 5 (wow was it really that many January deadline days spent obsessing over the rankings ) seasons.

Of course props to Kazistuta who also has an incredible average for 7 performances, and to GTF who I already called out a few years ago as being some sort of cq savant.

 

[skidmark]

Hey all! I took a little CQ break since the last update, but it's nice to see folks chime in about how they appreciated this year's game. Also, thanks to Squire for such a comprehensive breakdown of the all-time facts. The game is now going into its 8th edition, and it has maintained its basic structure, but to me it's not something you have to tweak too much. I know that every year a few less posts happen on the thread, but the level of participation and number of teams is still quite high. Are people still having fun? Any suggestions? Someone mentioned that with the new WT events, the average team points have gone up, so it may be an appropriate time to up the CQ points total. I do like that somewhat of a tradition has developed at the 7500 level (plus it allows for some pretty direct comparisons on that all-time list), but at the same time, I'm open to change if there's a widespread interest in it. If anyone has strong feelings about this, let's talk about it in the next week, as I'm sure there are a good number of teams who have already started preparing for a 7500-point team in 2018. But yeah, feedback welcome, even if it's to say that you don't post much on the thread but like the game.

For me, I'm loving the game still, but I've had trouble keeping up with the updates this year. I might do an early callout to sign people up for more of the summer, maybe all the way from April to August. But I'll get to that in the new thread. I hope to put it up around the same time as this one went up last year, which was December 15th, or maybe even a bit earlier.

Thanks for playing again everyone.

 

[Martin]

Looking forward to a next year edition of this great game... I am probably the only one who has a list of riders ready by now

 

[SafeBet]

Hey all! I took a little CQ break since the last update, but it's nice to see folks chime in about how they appreciated this year's game. Also, thanks to Squire for such a comprehensive breakdown of the all-time facts. The game is now going into its 8th edition, and it has maintained its basic structure, but to me it's not something you have to tweak too much. I know that every year a few less posts happen on the thread, but the level of participation and number of teams is still quite high. Are people still having fun? Any suggestions? Someone mentioned that with the new WT events, the average team points have gone up, so it may be an appropriate time to up the CQ points total. I do like that somewhat of a tradition has developed at the 7500 level (plus it allows for some pretty direct comparisons on that all-time list), but at the same time, I'm open to change if there's a widespread interest in it. If anyone has strong feelings about this, let's talk about it in the next week, as I'm sure there are a good number of teams who have already started preparing for a 7500-point team in 2018. But yeah, feedback welcome, even if it's to say that you don't post much on the thread but like the game.

For me, I'm loving the game still, but I've had trouble keeping up with the updates this year. I might do an early callout to sign people up for more of the summer, maybe all the way from April to August. But I'll get to that in the new thread. I hope to put it up around the same time as this one went up last year, which was December 15th, or maybe even a bit earlier.

Thanks for playing again everyone.

7500 looks fine to me.

 

[laarsland]

I only did a quick calculation without removing stagiaires, but here's the average CQ-score of riders on WT-teams the last three seasons:

2015: 292
2016: 298
2017: 310

So the nominal increase from 2016 to 2017 was double that of 2015 to 2016, but in average we're looking at a 4% increase in price for WT-riders for next year's game (not adjusted for who will stay on etc., just the general gist).

Perhaps looking at top half, quartile or decile will reveal more radical changes - but for me much of the fun in January is playing around with the budget and making those hard decisions. Staying at 7500 sounds good to me.

 

[fauniera]

Maybe unsurprisingly i'm happy with the rules as they are.

I am probably the only one who has a list of riders ready by now

Ha. No way.

 

[vladimir]

Maybe unsurprisingly i'm happy with the rules as they are.

I am probably the only one who has a list of riders ready by now

Ha. No way.

I have almost 60 riders that I need to have in my 2018 team already. Will it be allowed to have more than one team

 

[HelgeBlendet]

I vote aswell for sticking with 7500 points. Works great and leads to nicely balanced teams for the whole season.

Looking forward to 2018, allthough I haven't done any research yet and my longlist (build-up from last year) only has 64 riders so far. Lots of "work" to do in December.

 

[I'velo]

I am a player named in Squire's all time highlights post, was part of the Velorooms exodus. I lost track of the sport of cycling for a few years (forgot my email user and pass detsils for my original account) but now that I'm back in Europe, I'm back into cycling and keen to be back in this game! I hope I'm not too rusty, and that people still give heaps of hints of riders they are keen on. Am gon need it.

Keep everything the way it is.

 

[Tigerion]

I'll throw a vote in for keeping the 7500 as well

Looking at the CQ export 2016 had 265 k points on offer and 2017 had 277 k so that ties into the 4% that laarsland calculated from the teams
Are argument could be made for 7800 points as a 4% increase but I think a lower number is better than a higher number and don't see an extra 300 points making a huge impact on teams.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I say stick with 7500. I'd consider ending the game on an earlier date. Perhaps after Japan Cup?

 

[the asian]

I'd vote for keeping it at 7500 as well.

The finishing point is fine as it is.

 

[Kazistuta]

I'm also supporting keeping the 7500 score. Reg. the finishing time, I'd say follow the rules and let people decide if they want riders like Marezcko on their team for that reason. There's also weak lineups in other races during the season, and the "2.1 and above" rule is easy to understand.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Keep at 7500 to make it easier to compare with other seasons. Everyone is working with the same budget anyway and increasing or decreasing the budget won't make selecting a team easier or harder, it'll just shift the toughest decisions from one points range to another.
Keep the end point the same as well unless there's a convincing argument from an organizatory point of view.

 

[adamski101]

Keep it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Increasing the budget will not make selecting a team any easier.

Thanks to Skidmark for once again running the game this year. Your time and dedication is apprecaited.

 

[GP Blanco]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. More points will rsult in more similar teams because top picks/decisions are easier to make.

 

[skidmark]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Glad to know most people are on the same page - let's keep things the same. It definitely is easier to prepare and know what to expect when it's consistent. As per Hugo's point about possibly ending earlier - it has definitely always been an awkward thing around the end of the season with points dwindling off... it is like that in the early season too, there have sometimes been a couple of weeks with very little going on, although then people are still so excited about the game in the early going that there isn't much dimming of enthusiasm. I certainly take the thoughts of the game creator quite seriously! But without knowing exactly how the season is going to end (and without many other people wanting to change the end), my inclination is to keep it the same rules as it is. If I had made the ending at, say, the Japan Cup at the start of the year, I wouldn't have known exactly when Guangxi was taking place, which of course had bearing on the game and finished after the Japan Cup (as well, Turkey being moved provided another week of action after Lombardia). And without knowing how close the competition will be and who will be in the mix with what riders, I want to be careful to leave it open to a close finish - I believe it was 2013 when SteelyDan just barely beat Geraint Too Fast or something like that, but the lead would have changed back if the competition kept going, right? Regardless of whether I'm remembering correctly, I think having the rules open as they currently are is the best solution to a tough problem. Definitely the last couple of weeks aren't too engaging for everyone, but I'd almost rather risk that than not have the opportunity to follow an exciting race down to the wire.

 

[scrooll07]

I'm against ending earlier as you never know what could happen in the races after the potential ending point.For example if this year game end at Japan cup I wouldn't have won the Green Jersey Competition and this could happen for the GC as well.We pick riders who bring us points through all the year not only for 9 or 10 months.