The 2025 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[Salvarani]

It seems like a lot of people found some value in the 600-800 range this year which I don't really agree with, so I'm curious to see those picks. Thursday will be pretty busy at work which kinda sucks timing wise but at least I'll have a nice evening catching up on all the discussion.

I have two in that range.

One I have thought would be picked, a fair amount, but maybe I have overestimated or he just been overlooked in favor of others. I sense that people have looked a bit higher perhaps with their most expensive picks. Will be interesting to see the pop table.

The other one is a good rider, but more on the opportunistic side of things. I would be surprised if he is really popular, but I thought he showed a great level while also being unlucky last season.

 

[ingsve]

I have two in that range.

One I have thought would be picked, a fair amount, but maybe I have overestimated or he just been overlooked in favor of others. I sense that people have looked a bit higher perhaps with their most expensive picks. Will be interesting to see the pop table.

The other one is a good rider, but more on the opportunistic side of things. I would be surprised if he is really popular, but I thought he showed a great level while also being unlucky last season.

There are riders in that range that look like they can be good picks if they can repeat what they did a year prior for example. It's just a matter of confidence whether that is realistic or not.

The other type of rider one could feasably pick in that range would be a young rider who might still have a lot of growth and improvement in points to do. The issue is that it's starting to get expensive to pick someone and hope that they can reach a level that they don't have a proven track record for. I prefer to keep those types of gambles for lower cost youngsters and leave the more expensive picks to those with more of a proven level.

 

[Salvarani]

There are riders in that range that look like they can be good picks if they can repeat what they did a year prior for example. It's just a matter of confidence whether that is realistic or not.

The other type of rider one could feasably pick in that range would be a young rider who might still have a lot of growth and improvement in points to do. The issue is that it's starting to get expensive to pick someone and hope that they can reach a level that they don't have a proven track record for. I prefer to keep those types of gambles for lower cost youngsters and leave the more expensive picks to those with more of a proveny level.

The rider I have picked as the more opportunistic one in this range has showed a very good level for two seasons in a row now, in some big races. I was already thinking about him last year and was really regretting not picking him around March. Then some things happened to him, but he showed up later only to be unlucky again or just not having any form towards the end of season. He was even available for a slight discount compared to his 2023 score, so I think he could make sense this year. A pick that I felt excited about, so I hope he could be a potential game changer. Looking forward to follow him this year. We will see how it goes.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

The rider I have picked as the more opportunistic one in this range has showed a very good level for two seasons in a row now, in some big races. I was already thinking about him last year and was really regretting not picking him around March. Then some things happened to him, but he showed up later only to be unlucky again or just not having any form towards the end of season. He was even available for a slight discount compared to his 2023 score, so I think he could make sense this year. A pick that I felt excited about, so I hope he could be a potential game changer. Looking forward to follow him this year. We will see how it goes.

This really can only be one rider... IMO it's time for us to collectively tone down the pre-game reveals a bit, you are not the only one who is going a little too far with them this year.

 

[Shakes]

Hacked website together quickly last year so fingers crossed but... when uploading new teams (once skidmark released them) then it should all work. Now it's empty for two reasons:
- No teams in given year
- No CQ Ranking data yet

Once CQ Rankings get data (after first races) but especially after teams are uploaded it should be populated. When errors arise please drop a line! As I am sure something will be off somewhere.

Website for reference (useless until teams are uploaded):

CQ Cycling Game - 2025: GC

 

[Hugo Koblet]

This really can only be one rider... IMO it's time for us to collectively tone down the pre-game reveals a bit, you are not the only one who is going a little too far with them this year.

I agree with this. We should be a little bit careful not to give too much away. That said, I honestly don't know who that particular rider that Salvarani is talking about is.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

I agree with this. We should be a little bit careful not to give too much away. That said, I honestly don't know who that particular rider that Salvarani is talking about is.

Me neither. I even ran through all the riders in the price range and I still can't figure out who it is. Maybe one of the reasons to explain why I never end up high in the results list in this game.

 

[repre]

This really can only be one rider... IMO it's time for us to collectively tone down the pre-game reveals a bit, you are not the only one who is going a little too far with them this year.

Man, everybody know Pogi will score 7k this season) no need to hide this fact

 

[Squire]

I agree with this. We should be a little bit careful not to give too much away. That said, I honestly don't know who that particular rider that Salvarani is talking about is.

I think some teasers is a fun tradition, so I don't mind too much what has been already posted. Especially enjoy looking at the statistics people post. And I can see from some numbers that people have quite different teams from myself. But saying actual names before the reveal feels like swearing in church.

I also have no idea who Salvarani is talking about. I can find one big rider somewhat fitting the description, but if it is who I think it is, then Salvarani will also be correct when saying he will not be picked very much.

 

[Salvarani]

At least the thread is active in the last few hours and we could get more entries for the game!

 

[ingsve]

Well, I already spoiled all the good names at the end of the 2024 thread so that cat is out of the bag.

 

[Shakes]

More activity is better. So semi-reveals can't hurt.

(I have been too lazy to try to figure out who he could have picked, not intending to change my team anymore anyway).

 

[Wvv]

How do the green and polka dot jersey rankings work?

 

[EvansIsTheBest]

This really can only be one rider... IMO it's time for us to collectively tone down the pre-game reveals a bit, you are not the only one who is going a little too far with them this year.

I couldn't figure out who Salvarani was talking about, not that it would have changed anything for my team selection process if it did, but I respect that people have different thresholds for what they consider spoiling names. We have also had far more explicit talk about 2025 picks while the 2024 season was unfolding (which is unavoidable to an extent).

It might be worth setting written guidelines that everybody is comfortable with for future editions. I think a little bit of a reveal can be fun so we shouldn't ban it outright but maybe a compromise can be found. We could allow general talk that doesn't let people infer directly that certain riders have been picked or not picked. For instance, "I have 5 Belgians riders on my team" is fine but a full nationality breakdown (therefore giving a list of all the nationalities that haven't been picked) isn't. If people post age/cost breakdowns it might be worth doing it in a way where there aren't any groups with 0 riders to make sure that we can't infer that an entire subset of riders has been excluded. Admittedly I didn't follow that rule this year but I think I will stick to that going forward.

I'm open to other, better ideas on the subject but that's the best I could come up with right now.

 

[EvansIsTheBest]

How do the green and polka dot jersey rankings work?

The teams that scored the most CQ points each week get rewarded with some green jersey points and whomever has the most at the end of the year wins that competition. Think of each week as a "stage" of the competition, hence the name. The points distributed each week are the same as the points distributed on a flat stage of the Tour de France so 45 points for the week's highest scorer, 35 for the team in second place, etc. At times this has favored teams that have one super expensive rider that can score a ton by himself (think Pogacar last year, Evenepoel in 2022) over teams that spread out their spending and are more consistent week to week.

I think the polka dot has been discontinued for a while.

There have been attempts at times to introduce a white jersey for best newcomer to the game but I think that just adds to skidmark's workload while repeating the current ranking with fewer names in it so it's not obvious what it actually brings something new to the table.

 

[Panda Claws]

I expressly try to avoid spoilers in these threads but luckily that's not hard to do.

For me the difficulty in this game indeed remains that you also need to be willing to gamble on young riders who lack the track record but could have a breakout season. At least I'm no longer going all-in on backing aging has-been's and I've learned to respect U23 and junior results.
Hopefilly that'll translate to a first half finish.

This year I didn't think there were that many obvious picks with extremely high potential though (think Roglic a few years back) so I might be in for a shock if others think differently.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I have now send in my team of 33 riders with a total cost of less than 7500 points.
I'll avoid revealing too much, but here's a small teaser:

Basque riders: 0

 

[Netserk]

I couldn't figure out who Salvarani was talking about, not that it would have changed anything for my team selection process if it did, but I respect that people have different thresholds for what they consider spoiling names. We have also had far more explicit talk about 2025 picks while the 2024 season was unfolding (which is unavoidable to an extent).

It might be worth setting written guidelines that everybody is comfortable with for future editions. I think a little bit of a reveal can be fun so we shouldn't ban it outright but maybe a compromise can be found. We could allow general talk that doesn't let people infer directly that certain riders have been picked or not picked. For instance, "I have 5 Belgians riders on my team" is fine but a full nationality breakdown (therefore giving a list of all the nationalities that haven't been picked) isn't. If people post age/cost breakdowns it might be worth doing it in a way where there aren't any groups with 0 riders to make sure that we can't infer that an entire subset of riders has been excluded. Admittedly I didn't follow that rule this year but I think I will stick to that going forward.

I'm open to other, better ideas on the subject but that's the best I could come up with right now.

I don't know why you would read this thread before the deadline (beyond the OP) if you don't want (indirect) spoilers. All talk here that is relevant to the thread can hint about which riders folks have picked.

 

[EvansIsTheBest]

I don't know why you would read this thread before the deadline (beyond the OP) if you don't want (indirect) spoilers. All talk here that is relevant to the thread can hint about which riders folks have picked.

I don't think the issue is getting spoiled who is on another team per se. Rather I think people take exception with the fact that some people might take advantage of those spoilers to help them decide on their own picks.

For instance if someone is on the fence about picking Pogacar and comes in the thread, sees everybody has one mysterious 5000+ points rider (or whatever convoluted way they use to describe picking Pogacar without actually naming) that might sway them. That goes against each person building their team on their own which is the core principle of the game.

There is precedent from the first edition of the game that makes this a touchy subject. Initially only like ~30 teams were allowed in and almost none had Cobo on them (because people had not realized that there was a "loophole" allowing picking a zero point rider), they were all revealed before the game was opened up for everybody and in that second batch of teams, unsurprisingly the number of people that had Cobo was much, much higher. Considering Cobo went on to win the Vuelta that year you can imagine the competitive advantage from knowing that he was indeed available.

 

[Salvarani]

I don't think the issue is getting spoiled who is on another team per se. Rather I think people take exception with the fact that some people might take advantage of those spoilers to help them decide on their own picks.

That can both be helpful or drive one crazy! It is a fine line, lol.

 

[ingsve]

Considering Cobo went on to win the Vuelta that year you can imagine the competitive advantage from knowing that he was indeed available.

Thankfully it didn't affect the win of the game though since I was one of those early entries and I did have Cobo in my team from the start before it was spoiled.

 

[letstalkcycling]

I joined before by yoyokt, didn't play last year but will this

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I couldn't figure out who Salvarani was talking about, not that it would have changed anything for my team selection process if it did, but I respect that people have different thresholds for what they consider spoiling names. We have also had far more explicit talk about 2025 picks while the 2024 season was unfolding (which is unavoidable to an extent).

It might be worth setting written guidelines that everybody is comfortable with for future editions. I think a little bit of a reveal can be fun so we shouldn't ban it outright but maybe a compromise can be found. We could allow general talk that doesn't let people infer directly that certain riders have been picked or not picked. For instance, "I have 5 Belgians riders on my team" is fine but a full nationality breakdown (therefore giving a list of all the nationalities that haven't been picked) isn't. If people post age/cost breakdowns it might be worth doing it in a way where there aren't any groups with 0 riders to make sure that we can't infer that an entire subset of riders has been excluded. Admittedly I didn't follow that rule this year but I think I will stick to that going forward.

I'm open to other, better ideas on the subject but that's the best I could come up with right now.

I don't think we need super specific rules for this, just the collective understanding that we don't do sneak peeks from which someone else can (more or less) glean individual picks as opposed to the broadest strokes. So if we can avoid posting how many 1000+-point riders you have (although I guess that one won't be equally important every year), mentioning you have 1 rider from Luxembourg/Eritrea/Ecuador/[insert other country with a tiny amount of pro cyclists here], and detailed rider descriptions, then I think we'd have a better balance between the anticipation of pre-game talk and the risk of giving late submitters a little bit of a leg up.

 

[Netserk]

I don't think the issue is getting spoiled who is on another team per se. Rather I think people take exception with the fact that some people might take advantage of those spoilers to help them decide on their own picks.

For instance if someone is on the fence about picking Pogacar and comes in the thread, sees everybody has one mysterious 5000+ points rider (or whatever convoluted way they use to describe picking Pogacar without actually naming) that might sway them. That goes against each person building their team on their own which is the core principle of the game.

There is precedent from the first edition of the game that makes this a touchy subject. Initially only like ~30 teams were allowed in and almost none had Cobo on them (because people had not realized that there was a "loophole" allowing picking a zero point rider), they were all revealed before the game was opened up for everybody and in that second batch of teams, unsurprisingly the number of people that had Cobo was much, much higher. Considering Cobo went on to win the Vuelta that year you can imagine the competitive advantage from knowing that he was indeed available.

The flip-side to Cobo is Ospina. I don't see the issue with voluntary collaboration (and false flag collaboration).

 

[skidmark]

Phew, the teams are coming thick and fast! We're up to 75 teams; I'm trying to keep up but I see I still have 5 or so in my inbox... please keep them coming, and even if I can't get back to you before submission deadline in just under 5 hours, I'll get to them soon after.

Also note that the deadline today is the submission deadline; after that there is 24 hours for revisions before the publication deadline tomorrow, when we can all reveal our teams on the thread. Also note that if you're a latecomer, I will be accepting teams right up until publication deadline, you just won't have the opportunity to revise them if there are any mistakes etc (eg if you're over budget I'll just cut a rider from your team and you won't have the opportunity to replace him). But you are welcome to keep sending teams in!