• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and wonderful Christmas. Thanks so much for being part of the Cycling News community in 2025 and beyond!

The 2026 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

Mar 13, 2009
3,855
2,404
16,680
Hi all, and welcome to the 2026 CQ Ranking Manager Game! This is the 16th edition of the game! Please see below for some history, basics, and more specific rules related to dates, dopers, etc.

History

The game was launched on December 8th 2010 by cyclingnews forum poster Hugo Koblet. His idea was to have a game where you build a cycling team from the website cqranking.com and its comprehensive numerical rankings of riders. What was originally meant to be a 25-team max competition that Hugo reserved the right to cancel if there was lack of interest became the most successful game in cyclingnews forum history, and expanded to velorooms forums (RIP) as well.

Hugo successfully ran the game for 3 years, and it bred various offshoots, such as a youth game, seasonal games (classics and GTs), emerging riders and riders in decline games. I took over organizing the main game for 2014 when Hugo got too busy, and have done so since then. See the second post in this thread for a roll of honour of yearly champions.


That is it for preamble. Let’s go through the more comprehensive set of rules:

Basics

The game is based on the point system developed by the website www.cqranking.com. Based on this system you will have to select a team of between 25 and 33 riders whose combined value doesn’t exceed 7500 points. 7500 points is normally under the mean for the ProTour teams, although with top heavy teams this is not the case now as the median for 2025 is 6943. 7500 is closest to the amount of points team Uno-X made this season, the top ranked ProTeam and 9th ranked of all teams.

Your aim then is to select a team of riders who will increase their 2025 score the most during the 2026 season. The winner of the game is the one who has selected the team with the highest combined value when the game ends.


1. How the game works

1.1. Start & Finish

The season starts when the first major race (.1 or higher) giving CQ points is held and ends when the last major race is held. The winner will be crowned when the next update after the last major race is out.*

*An extension will be granted to the end of season if it is very close at the top. If any teams are within 100 points of the leader after the last major race, the season will be automatically extended until the final race of the year unless all teams within 100 points explicitly concede. As well, anyone in the top 10 can extend the season by PMing me a request to do so before the last major race starts.

(The reason for this second rule is that although minor races go through December, it is rare to have a rider in the game participate in these races, so it is sensible to end the season when people are still generally watching cycling. But if it's a very close race, it's important to crown the person who picked the best team for the year.)

1.2 Updates
Each week we will publish an update with a top 10 and a list of the high scorers and high jumpers. This will sometimes be by me, and sometimes by others – I will be setting a tentative schedule based on volunteers.

2. On doping

2.1. On ex-dopers

All riders are available to choose, except for riders who are provisionally suspended by the UCI (in the top list of this link).

Riders who have been suspended for doping and had that affect their 2025 score will not be available simply for their 2025 score. Instead, a rider’s value will be equivalent to that of his last full season; or, if he has more recently had a (not full, due to suspension) season in which he has earned more points, that season represents his value. Riders who have been suspended by the UCI (ie. Not merely provisionally suspended) are on the bottom list of the same link as above.

Therefore, you can pick any rider you like, but if you want to take Michel Hessmann, for example, his suspension ended in early 2025 and started in 2024 (even though the sample was from 2023), so his 2025 and 2024 scores of 40 and 0 would not be his cost. Instead, he got 69 points in 2023 prior to his suspension, which would be his cost for this game.

Hopefully the lists I've provided and the rules are clear enough, but if you make an error I will try to let you know if any of your submissions fall into this category.

2.2. Riders getting caught during the season
If you include a rider in your team who gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar, nothing happens right away. Your rider keeps his points unless the cqranking.com deletes his results before the end of the game.

Basically, the value of a rider on cqranking.com always stands.

3. Submitting your team

3.1. How do I?

You pick between 25 and 33 riders whose combined value doesn’t exceed 7500 points and send the list to me.

As I will manually have to copy/enter the teams into the Microsoft Excel file which keeps track of the scores, please be careful that you send your team to me based on the correct formula. I don’t take any responsibility for any error you might make. If I spot an error I will do my best to contact you but I can’t guarantee anything. Of course, if you have any questions feel free to ask either here in this thread or by sending a personal message.

The layout you need to use is this:

POGACAR Tadej
DEL TORO ROMERO Isaac
Etc.

Nothing else. No point scores after the name. Also, be careful that there is no “space” after the name, because I will have to delete it manually, but can't always detect these things in time for the game. If there is an error that isn't discovered until after the game starts, and that error makes your team ineligible (eg. if it puts your team over the limit) the rider will simply be deleted from the team without replacement.

To make things easier for both you and me I will link to a file for you to download in which you can type in your team and it will automatically show you the value of each rider as well as the aggregated value of your team. Then you will just have to copy your team (names only) directly from this file and send it to me.

Hopefully this clears any misunderstandings of a rider’s value as well as reduces the number of errors made in a team sent to me.

3.2. When do I?
The first race of the season will start January 8, so I want to have your team in hand on January 7 at the latest.

There are two deadlines: a submission deadline and a revision/publication deadline, spaced 24 hours apart. This is to address the issue brought up in recent years about whether it is 'fair' to allow changes after teams have seen the teams of other players, and for 'late' submissions. I would like to make this a game that is accessible to as many people as possible, yet preserve that element of fairness. So, the submission deadline will be when I want to have received all the teams. The revision and publication deadline is to allow a 24-hour period for me to look over the teams and allow a chance to people to change their team in case of error, before having access to a list of riders that other teams picked. If you get mixed up with the time zone or unexpectedly don't have internet access around the submission deadline, I will accept teams up to the revision deadline at my discretion, but if allowed those teams will not have the chance to revise in case of error.

The submission deadline is 23:59 (CET) January 6th, so early January 7th for Aussies and sometime earlier on January 6th for North Americans. The revision and publication deadline is 24 hours later; I would ask that people refrain from posting the riders on their team until after that, so midnight CET on the start of January 8th.

Please note that even though the racing season is over, it is always possible that CQ will adjust points for an earlier season race for whatever reason (eg. readjusting points for suspended dopers) Be mindful of these changes.

cqranking.com usually uploads the final update of the season on December 31, and the values in this update are the ones we’re using. However, the changes are usually very small so there’s no reason why you can’t start selecting your team already today!

Disclaimer: ensuring your team is full of eligible riders and is on budget is your responsibility. If I notice you are over budget or have an ineligible rider I will send you a message, but if you don't get back to me in time, or I don't catch it before the deadline, I will simply remove one rider to make your budget work. Obviously it is to your advantage to be able to choose all your riders, so please be diligent.

Create Your Team


Hugo created a very helpful file in 2012, referred to above, that helps avoid any errors in calculation and helps ensure you are formatting your rider names correctly. I would encourage everyone to use this option, especially if you are not confident in your spreadsheet creating skills. Please use the file attached here to create your team, then copy and paste the rider names to send to me by PM once you have it correct. Thank you.

note: the 'create your team' file has not yet been manually updated to include different scores for dopers as per rule 2.1, so it is currently wholly your responsibility to account for this.

I think that about covers everything. If you have any questions or if I forgot to add or explain anything, please let me know.
 
Mar 13, 2009
3,855
2,404
16,680
I'm going to reserve the second post in the thread for a list of teams who have submitted, as they come in, as well as list an honour roll of top finishers throughout the years.

Winners:

2011 – 87 participants: ingsve – 13897 points
2012 – 129 participants: skidmark – 19345 points
2013 – 132 participants: SteelyDan – 13094 points
2014 – 150 participants: Pentacycle – 14367 points
2015 – 155 participants: Cykeltyven – 16209 points
2016 – 144 participants: skidmark – 15392 points
2017 – 131 participants: fauniera – 15867 points
2018 – 129 participants: ruvu75 – 16513 points
2019 - 114 participants: fauniera - 14579 points
2020 - 113 participants: bminchow - 10010 points
2021 - 93 participants: Object - 19129 points
2022 - 91 participants: EvansIsTheBest - 18662 points
2023 - 103 participants: Bluesinthebottle - 16336 points
2024 - 94 participants: Shalgo - 16355 points
2025 - 96 participants: Salvarani - 17113 points
 
Last edited:
Sep 20, 2017
12,480
23,573
28,180
It's going to be an interesting edition. Very similar situation in the 1000+ bracket to last year, but the 200-400 region is absolutely stacked this time round where it was almost empty last year. And on the flip side the batch of neopros is the least interesting we've seen for ages. Lots of good picks out there, but there are going to be a lot of painful choices to be made.
 
May 9, 2010
11,087
2,559
28,180
It's going to be an interesting edition. Very similar situation in the 1000+ bracket to last year, but the 200-400 region is absolutely stacked this time round where it was almost empty last year. And on the flip side the batch of neopros is the least interesting we've seen for ages. Lots of good picks out there, but there are going to be a lot of painful choices to be made.
This is exactly my assessment as well. I can't find a single rider under 100 points I'm thrilled about, but there are probably 30 riders in the 200-500 points bracket that are worthy of consideration.
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,258
1,086
20,680
Yep. I've already made a team and then I did a second team that uses none of the same riders and that second team could easily get 12000 points minimum if not more.

I'm guessing there won't be as many must pick choices this year since there are good alternatives and not likely as many picks that almost everyone has that you can't miss out on. Or they are so obvious you have them already.
 
Sep 4, 2017
3,594
4,237
19,180
It's going to be an interesting edition. Very similar situation in the 1000+ bracket to last year, but the 200-400 region is absolutely stacked this time round where it was almost empty last year. And on the flip side the batch of neopros is the least interesting we've seen for ages. Lots of good picks out there, but there are going to be a lot of painful choices to be made.
I agree. Really like that there are no obvious picks in the top 20 that are highly likely to have a big increase in their score to the extent of being picked by 35%+ of teams entered.

The bargain basement has slim pickings and some of the better ascending 100-250 pointers are on stacked teams where it could be a year too early for them in terms of breakthrough scoring.

Last year had 2 super obvious zero pointer junior superstars but this year most world tour newbies are U23 graduates already with a points score to beat.

I very easily could be wrong but I think we will have more unique picks this year and much lower similarity scores.
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,258
1,086
20,680
It feels like with all the options available this year risk will play a huge role. Either you can go for a strategy where you try to avoid risk in order to minimize duds since a winning team will likely have very few duds with all the potential profitable picks available so anyone who happens to avoid all the duds will likely get an edge.

At the same time, risk might be a good differentiator. Some riders might have a huge upside but going into the year they might have uncertainties about them so their year might go either way. But if one is lucky with such picks one might get good points that others have overlooked.
 
Dec 28, 2010
4,173
3,170
21,180
Excited to see the thread being up! Hoping for many participants!

I initially thought the 2026 game would be a rather meh one, but after working on my team, I've realized it's really exciting. A lot of good options with not that many extremely obvious stand-outs. I'm liking the team I've assembled so far, and as per usual I'm really struggling with deciding on the last few places. I'm about 250 under budget and struggling to decide on who to 'upgrade' or what changes to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MADRAZO
Sep 5, 2011
485
487
10,380
My (uncompetitive) team is in.

Rather top heavy in terms of points, but a fairly balanced amount of riders from the various levels of cycling 13 WT : 10 PCT : 10 CT.

Can't be bothered working out the average age if doing it manually is the only way. However the eldest is 32 and that's very much an outlier with the next eldest being ~7 years younger I think.

France and GB the most represented.

Good luck all!
 
Aug 29, 2011
3,705
2,093
16,680
I actually find the +1000 crop especially tempting this year. The picks there aren't as obvious, yet one is bound to explode and net a load of points for the ones who did dare to pick them.

Probably not going to take that route this year though. I've usually had teams with very expensive riders on them and it's frustrating if they don't perform. A whole cohort of cheaper riders may be more fun. I just pray that I'll have no Lazkano this year.
 
Nov 14, 2024
20
13
610
Good luck to everyone! I'm looking forward to participating for the second time and improving my 13th place from last year. Will it be available on this (link) page again? It was very convenient!


I'm building my new team. I consider picking a lot of "cheaper" riders this year, but probably the winner will be the one who dared to choose more expensive and risky picks such as Almeida or Del Toro last year.
 
Oct 5, 2010
4,283
329
16,180
I consider picking a lot of "cheaper" riders this year, but probably the winner will be the one who dared to choose more expensive and risky picks such as Almeida or Del Toro last year.
I agree to an extent, because there are very few high-point slam dunks. Had Ben O'Connor been a 400-pointer, he'd be a given. Had Hirschi been at 600~, I'd probably say the same.

I actually find the +1000 crop especially tempting this year. The picks there aren't as obvious, yet one is bound to explode and net a load of points for the ones who did dare to pick them.
I know people don't like discussing these things too much ahead of time, but there are no well kept secrets among the 1000+ers. But... Philipsen? Or are people actually considering WvA again?

I'm honestly not sure those picks will make the biggest of differences though. This is however in large parts because the meta has shifted in the last half-decade towards finding the neo-pros or young riders who will make the bigger jumps. It's about finding the next Seixas or even doubling down on such a rider hoping he has an Del Toro-like, or rather a more realistic Magnier-like, outburst in their sophomore WT season.
Those who can correctly pick the six or seven 0->400, or even 72->280 riders along with not picking expensive busts will do very well.
 
Aug 29, 2011
3,705
2,093
16,680
I don't want to discuss any specific picks for this year, but I will say that there's usually at least one 1000+ pick that makes the best possible team, and having one ace performing well really lifts the baseline of your team. Take all of this with a grain of salt though since I've never finished anywhere close to winning.

As far as I know though these are all the picks that cost above 1000+ that ended up being a 'perfect' pick in their year.

Philippe Gilbert (2011): 1843 -> 3180
Bradley Wiggins (2012): 1323 -> 2687
Chris Froome (2013): 1427 -> 2766
Alberto Contador (2014): 1228 -> 2543
Fabio Aru (2015): 1092 -> 1756
Joaquim Rodriguez (2015): 1150 -> 1750
Julian Alaphilippe (2018): 1012 -> 2086
Primoz Roglic (2019): 1709 -> 3235
Jakob Fuglsang (2019): 1045 -> 2067
Tadej Pogacar (2021): 2044 -> 3656
Remco Evenepoel (2022): 1325 -> 3157
Primoz Roglic (2023): 1260 -> 2744
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,258
1,086
20,680
I don't want to discuss any specific picks for this year, but I will say that there's usually at least one 1000+ pick that makes the best possible team, and having one ace performing well really lifts the baseline of your team. Take all of this with a grain of salt though since I've never finished anywhere close to winning.

As far as I know though these are all the picks that cost above 1000+ that ended up being a 'perfect' pick in their year.

Philippe Gilbert (2011): 1843 -> 3180
Bradley Wiggins (2012): 1323 -> 2687
Chris Froome (2013): 1427 -> 2766
Alberto Contador (2014): 1228 -> 2543
Fabio Aru (2015): 1092 -> 1756
Joaquim Rodriguez (2015): 1150 -> 1750
Julian Alaphilippe (2018): 1012 -> 2086
Primoz Roglic (2019): 1709 -> 3235
Jakob Fuglsang (2019): 1045 -> 2067
Tadej Pogacar (2021): 2044 -> 3656
Remco Evenepoel (2022): 1325 -> 3157
Primoz Roglic (2023): 1260 -> 2744
The problem in that range is that you are putting a lot of points into a single rider in a category that is exceedingly hard to predict. Gilbert in 2011 was an extreme outlier in his career coming from 1843 which was already his highest performance year up to then. Same exact thing with Wiggins in 2012, Froome in 2013, Aru in 2015, Roglic in 2019, Fuglsang in 2019, Pogacar in 2021, Evenepoel in 2022. The jump in these years were all taken from a previous high to a new record high.

Looking overall on the available riders this just doesn't happen that often that a rider that is on the best year of their life goes on to be massively better the following year. So having that as a strategy for the game is a huge gamble. Some people have tried and failed if we look at the people who recently put their faith in Ayuso in consecutive years expecting him to make the jump to 2000+ but him instead only staying the same or having very moderate profits.

And the other examples where a rider has a slump year and still gets over 1000 points and then jumps back up is also not that common and also looking at Wout van Aert last season, not necessarily a profitable pick.

Going cheaper has historically at least spread out the risk and also cheaper picks tend to have more margin for improvement.

But as you say, if you gamble and get lucky then having one of these picks is of course a very huge boon to the team. But you need to get lucky or have very strong indicators that someone will be better than before.
 
Sep 20, 2017
12,480
23,573
28,180
Evenepoel in 2022
This one is not like the others at all...

I also take the opposite view to you on expensive picks. The most obvious ones can fairly reliably turn somewhere around a 50% profit (Van Aert last year being the exception), but the right combination of mid-range picks is going to score heavily enough to outpace that kind of profit + the odd points from the additional 50/100-pointers you throw in with your expensive rider. So in my view, going for the two most obvious 1000+ riders is the safest route to getting a good score, but the winning team is highly unlikely to have both, and in fact will probably have neither so long as they aren't doing much more than that 50% profit. Last year is a great example - lots of Vingegaard teams did well, but it was obvious relatively early that Salvarani's less top-heavy approach was going to beat them all, and that was on paper a better year for going top-heavy.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2009
5,258
1,086
20,680
This one is not like the others at all...

I also take the opposite view to you on expensive picks. The most obvious ones can fairly reliably turn somewhere around a 50% profit (Van Aert last year being the exception), but the right combination of mid-range picks is going to score heavily enough to outpace that kind of profit + the odd points from the additional 50/100-pointers you throw in with your expensive rider. So in my view, going for the two most obvious 1000+ riders is the safest route to getting a good score, but the winning team is highly unlikely to have both, and in fact will probably have neither so long as they aren't doing much more than that 50% profit. Last year is a great example - lots of Vingegaard teams did well, but it was obvious relatively early that Salvarani's less top-heavy approach was going to beat them all, and that was on paper a better year for going top-heavy.
Ya, I can agree that Evenepoel is a bit of both. He still fits the mold of having his best year followed by a massive year but that previous best year was still cut in half so ya. I not exactly like the others and I believe that year he was a very popular pick? I wasn't back playing yet then so not really sure.

As for the rest I'm not sure what you are arguing. You say that having two expensive picks that give 50% is a good guarantee to get high points but the winner will likely not use that strategy so then why is it a good strategy at all? Is it not the team you make to save face and finish 20th instead of 50th?

Why not go for the team you think can win rather than playing it safe? And how is that the opposite of what I was saying?

Also I'm not sure it's even that obvious to pick a 1000 cost rider who will make 50% profit. Like I said many picked Van Aert and Ayuso in recent years without success. From last years pool only Vingegaard and Pedersen got to basically 50% and only 1 person picked Pedersen.
 
Aug 20, 2011
978
102
10,180
Team submitted!
No rider in +700 point range, and probably most suprising to me, no less than nine French riders (I actually had 12 at one point). If you simply take the average from CQ Excel file the average age is 23,85 years, so probably 24 and a bit in reality. So now I just have to wait one and a half week to see who I have forgotten this year :) .
 
Sep 20, 2017
12,480
23,573
28,180
Ya, I can agree that Evenepoel is a bit of both. He still fits the mold of having his best year followed by a massive year but that previous best year was still cut in half so ya. I not exactly like the others and I believe that year he was a very popular pick? I wasn't back playing yet then so not really sure.

As for the rest I'm not sure what you are arguing. You say that having two expensive picks that give 50% is a good guarantee to get high points but the winner will likely not use that strategy so then why is it a good strategy at all? Is it not the team you make to save face and finish 20th instead of 50th?

Why not go for the team you think can win rather than playing it safe? And how is that the opposite of what I was saying?

Also I'm not sure it's even that obvious to pick a 1000 cost rider who will make 50% profit. Like I said many picked Van Aert and Ayuso in recent years without success. From last years pool only Vingegaard and Pedersen got to basically 50% and only 1 person picked Pedersen.
You argued that going for 1000+ riders is the risky option and not going for them is the safe one. I argued that it's the exact opposite.

I also finished fourth last year with Vingegaard and an underperforming Van Aert, which made me the best team with neither Del Toro nor Almeida - and that was with my next-most expensive pick, in Nys, also underperforming. Had both Van Aert and Nys managed the 50% profit you are deriding, I would have beaten Salvarani (and SafeBet would have won the game courtesy of being the only one in the top-3 with Van Aert). Care to explain why my overarching strategy was apparently bad? Especially in a year where the 200-400 range was basically nonexistent?

Obviously this year the calculus is different with the 200-400 range being stacked and the 400-1000 range not being that different to last season.
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,258
1,086
20,680
You argued that going for 1000+ riders is the risky option and not going for them is the safe one. I argued that it's the exact opposite.

I also finished fourth last year with Vingegaard and an underperforming Van Aert, which made me the best team with neither Del Toro nor Almeida - and that was with my next-most expensive pick, in Nys, also underperforming. Had both Van Aert and Nys managed the 50% profit you are deriding, I would have beaten Salvarani (and SafeBet would have won the game courtesy of being the only one in the top-3 with Van Aert). Care to explain why my overarching strategy was apparently bad? Especially in a year where the 200-400 range was basically nonexistent?

Obviously this year the calculus is different with the 200-400 range being stacked and the 400-1000 range not being that different to last season.
You said it yourself. 2 out of your 3 most expensive picks failed. That was a gamble lost. There are no ifs, buts, or do overs. By going with expensive picks one needs to be lucky with them. Luckily in a way, Van Aert was so popular so failing with him didn't hurt as much as an expensive pick might normally hurt. Your overall success was because of the rest of your picks, by not missing key riders like Ciccone, Magnier, Del Grosso and Brennan that two thirds of the field missed.