The 2026 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[Panda Claws]

I finally sent in my squad too. Put in way more effort than in previous editions so I'm really looking forward to following this team. In the past I always had a lot of random names I didn't care about, could hardly remember and had zero clue about what races they might even attend.
This year I'm definitely more invested in them so hopefully that'll also mean some better results.

Preparing for this game can really be exhausting. There are just so many possible picks and you get the craziest FOMO about ones you might've missed.

Hoping for a lot of participants and may your teams be free of crashes

 

[ingsve]

...so I'm really looking forward to following this team.

This really is the beauty of this game. Hopefully it mainly coincides with a competitive team as well so that the points for various riders actually matter. I remember some of the years where I just phoned in a quickly made team and it quickly fell below in the 50s, 60s or 70s in the rankings then that took away from it a bit but for example in the past couple of years since I've followed the sport much more closely again it has really added something to the year.

I always scour through the start lists for each coming week to get a sense of if I have any riders active and I follow the early reports on PCS to see if I happen to have any riders in the break of the day and then at the end of the day it's looking through the results (other than watching the races) to see where my riders finished, if that was good or bad by them and what it would mean for the rest of the season. It can really get a bit obsessive at times.

 

[del1962]

I have submitted my team, and I think this team's highest priced rider is the lower than any previous highest priced riders in any of my teams before.

There was two over 1000 riders I liked the look of, but I think after I picked the initial riders I wanted didn't have the budget for.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I sent the list of victims of my cogitations a couple of days ago. There was one expensive rider that I had decided early on to put in that will might put me in either the top 20 or the bottom 20. After that, I had plenty of riders that I considered in the 150-250 bracket, but with a few cheap and cheerful picks I was struggling to get anywhere near the 7500 points, so I put in a 700+ guy with no real expectation of great improvement, but because if he matches 2025 he has scored more than any other combination of cheap picks that I was looking at (after accounting for the loss of even cheaper guys' points to maintain the 33 rider rule).


And that is why I will be placed very unimpressively yet again.

 

[Panda Claws]

I

I sent the list of victims of my cogitations a couple of days ago. There was one expensive rider that I had decided early on to put in that will might put me in either the top 20 or the bottom 20.

Have faith. Just look at Steelydan's expensive 2013 picks.

Spoiler: Winners and their 1000+ points picks

Salvarani 2025: none (Almeida at 988 was really close)
shalgo 2024: Ayuso (1023 -> 1276)
Blues in the Bottle 2023: Roglic (1240 -> 2744)
EvansIsTheBest 2022: Evenepoel (1325 -> 3154)
Object 2021: none (but post Covid season with fewer options in that range and Evenepoel at 918 came close)
bminchow 2020: none (but obviously the season didn't play out as usual)
fauniera 2019: Bernal (1130 -> 2214)
Ruvu75 2018: Alaphilippe (1011 -> 2085)
fauniera 2017: none
skidmark 2016: none
Cykeltyven 2015: Rodriguez (1150 -> 1750)
Pentacycle 2014: Contador (1228 -> 2543)
SteelyDan 2013: Sagan (1963 -> 2673), Gilbert (1086 -> 949)
skidmark 2012: none
ingsve 2011: none

8 winners with at least one 1000+ points rider and 7 without. Both pathways seem equally valid historically.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

Team submitted. Two riders over 600 points, none above 1000 points.
My team scored a remarkable 19563 points in 2024. Some of the riders will not repeat their 2024 score, but hopefully do a lot better in 2026 than 2025.

 

[search]

I sent in my team as well. Needed some desperate measures to find more joy in watching cycling again.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Team submitted. Two riders over 600 points, none above 1000 points.
My team scored a remarkable 19563 points in 2024. Some of the riders will not repeat their 2024 score, but hopefully do a lot better in 2026 than 2025.

I keep promising myself not to be so directed by point loss compared to the previous year, in my selection, but always default to that. But my total for 2024 was only 18400, so feeling a bit better about it.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Team send in, but I gotta say that I'm not at all confident. I had like 15-20 very certain picks, but from there I honestly don't have much clue. I found it extremely tough this year, because I couldn't find a single rider below 100 points I'm happy with. I definitely don't see anyone having a Brennanesque season from the bunch I ended up with.

Good luck to everyone! I'm very curious to see everyone's teams.

 

[ingsve]

I keep promising myself not to be so directed by point loss compared to the previous year, in my selection, but always default to that. But my total for 2024 was only 18400, so feeling a bit better about it.

Just for fun I put together a quick list to see how high I could get the previous year performance from a legal team.

I ended up with a team that cost 7482 which had a 2024 score of 26228.

And that still excludes riders who won't be competing in 2026 otherwise it could have gotten even higher.

 

[Panda Claws]

Oof I'm at 18999 for 2024. No clue if that's particularly high.

There were definitely some riders on my shortlist that I wonder if people'll have dared picking up.

 

[SafeBet]

I keep promising myself not to be so directed by point loss compared to the previous year, in my selection, but always default to that. But my total for 2024 was only 18400, so feeling a bit better about it.

Lol my total for 2024 is 11777. Guess I won't be in the top5 for popularity this time.

 

[ingsve]

Lol my total for 2024 is 11777. Guess I won't be in the top5 for popularity this time.

Ya, that seems very out of place. No confidence in almost any bounce backs there it seems. Not saying it won't work though.

 

[Panda Claws]

For reference here are the 2025 stats again. Courtesy of Armchair Cyclist. Looks like usual suspects will be top-10 here again. I actually thought I'd do 'better' here this time around.

I'm top of the table!


If the table is the cost of your team last year: it identifies how much we rely (too much, as ever, for me) on picking up riders on the evidence of previous seasons as identifying potential for what they might do this year.

Top 10 and bottom ten:

1	Armchair cyclist	20842
2	Boris98	20485
3	NorthAmericanScum	19593
4	Total Package	18925
5	Samu Cuenca	18735
6	PandaClaws	18429
7	MADRAZO	18034
8	Shakes	17877
9	ingsve	16614
10	del1962	16589
...
87	Mushroom	7854
88	Nevs	7831
89	Tricycles	7551
90	JumboVismaFan	7149
91	RedheadDane	6939
92	LosBrolin	6836
93	Josedin	6776
94	DJW	6117
95	AlTarf_ua	5955
96	armchairclimber	5600

A neat symmetry in my near namesake being at the other end of the table.

 

[Squire]

Ya, that seems very out of place. No confidence in almost any bounce backs there it seems. Not saying it won't work though.

Just a reminder that the best ever CQ team (skidmark 2012) had a 2010 CQ value of 12253.

 

[Salvarani]

Lol my total for 2024 is 11777. Guess I won't be in the top5 for popularity this time.

12032 for me

 

[ingsve]

Just a reminder that the best ever CQ team (skidmark 2012) had a 2010 CQ value of 12253.

The reason I say out of place is because of the seeming disproportionate number of riders who underperformed their 2024 results so my expectation would be that most teams will at least have a fair number of such riders in their team. Only reaching 11777 in that context means one is rejecting a lot of riders that I would consider viable. It just feels like it leaves a lot of free points on the table.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Just for fun I put together a quick list to see how high I could get the previous year performance from a legal team.

I ended up with a team that cost 7482 which had a 2024 score of 26228.

And that still excludes riders who won't be competing in 2026 otherwise it could have gotten even higher.

I've got 27487 including Thomas, Kristoff and Lazkano, but can get up to 26864 excluding those that won't race in 2026.
Maybe we can ask Skidmark to log it as a non-competition team, like a Collective Wisdom team.

 

[ingsve]

I've got 27487 including Thomas, Kristoff and Lazkano, but can get up to 26864 excluding those that won't race in 2026.
Maybe we can ask Skidmark to log it as a non-competition team, like a Collective Wisdom team.

Ya, I found a couple other riders I had deleted from my various lists that would also contribute to a higher 2024 score. It would probably need some sort of algorithm to find the perfectly optimal team.

Bardet should probably fit into the higher version of the team would he not?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Ya, I found a couple other riders I had deleted from my various lists that would also contribute to a higher 2024 score. It would probably need some sort of algorithm to find the perfectly optimal team.

Bardet should probably fit into the higher version of the team would he not?

And courtesy of (I think) Squire, I have an algorithm for R Gui that calculates it. There was a team with Bardet that also came in over 27000, but I thought that was not a reasonable inclusion.

 

[Squire]

The reason I say out of place is because of the seeming disproportionate number of riders who underperformed their 2024 results so my expectation would be that most teams will at least have a fair number of such riders in their team. Only reaching 11777 in that context means one is rejecting a lot of riders that I would consider viable. It just feels like it leaves a lot of free points on the table.

Fair point, although I'm not sure if the number of underperformers is really that disproportionate. The current version of my team is at a touch over 15000, but when I inevitably make further changes, some 2024 high-scorers might be first in line to get the boot.

And courtesy of (I think) Squire, I have an algorithm for R Gui that calculates it. There was a team with Bardet that also came in over 27000, but I thought that was not a reasonable inclusion.

That was Skibby. But I think I quoted their post with the script at some point, long after they stopped being active on the forum.

 

[ingsve]

Fair point, although I'm not sure if the number of underperformers is really that disproportionate. The current version of my team is at a touch over 15000, but when I inevitably make further changes, some 2024 high-scorers might be first in line to get the boot.

Perhaps it's not that disproportionate, I missed out on several years so historically it might not be that crazy. It just felt going through it this year that I had an overabundance of riders to choose from in both under-performers and some rising stars whereas last year it didn't seem as obvious.

 

[Squire]

Perhaps it's not that disproportionate, I missed out on several years so historically it might not be that crazy. It just felt going through it this year that I had an overabundance of riders to choose from in both under-performers and some rising stars whereas last year it didn't seem as obvious.

I agree that there are a lot of options in general, for sure! I'm having a really tough time this year in deciding who to leave out. I could probably switch half my team and be almost equally happy with it.