The CQ "Career in Decline" game 2014

[Armchair cyclist]

This is the other idea I've had. I suggest it is approached with a sense of humour and not too competitively.

Essentially the same as any other CQ game, this time with a squad of 15 and a budget of 5000 points, but with one essential difference: you are looking for riders who will do as poorly as possible in 2014 compared to 2013.

Each rider's score in this game will be the difference between their final 2013 score and their 2014 score. The easy way to succeed, you might think, would be to choose those who have retired, whether voluntarily or not. That will bring you no joy: a rider must race on at least 20 days (as recorded by PCS, as CQ gives points for races below n.1 but does not count the days) to get their full score.

Some hypothetical examples (and they really are hypothetical, don't try to work out who I mean because I don't know myself):

A had a mid career peak in 2013, scoring 487 points. He rides a full season in 2014, with 74 race days, and returns to his humbler general level of performance, scoring 230 points. His score in the game for any team selecting him is (487-230) = 257 points. He raced more than 20 days, so his score is credited in full.

B scored 276 points in 2013, but is without a team at the beginning of 2014. He eventually gets picked up on a short contract in August, but only rides on 7 race days before getting injured. He accrues 15 points in this truncated season. His score for the purposes of this game is (276-15)*7/20 = 91 points (rounding to nearest whole number)

C scored 487 points in 2013, but when a contract was not forthcoming from his current team, he decided to call it a day. He achieves 0 points in 2014 by the simple expedient of taking up embroidery instead of cycling. His score for the purposes of this game is 0 ( if you want to be technical, it is (487-0)*0/20 ).

D surprised onlookers by scoring 432 points in 2013. It turns out, however, that this was not a flash in the pan, but a career breakthrough, and he goes on to get 775 points in 2014 en route to world domination in years to come. His score for the purposes of the game is (432-775) = -343 points. Yes, your selections can reduce your team's score. In the unlikely event that a score is increased with less than 20 days raced, his profit (ie your loss) is also proportionately decreased.

PM submissions to me by 11:59pm GWT Monday 20th January (i.e. half hour before start of Tour Down Under stage 1), expect monthly-ish updates, think about it as a side list while shortlisting for the main game.

Now, what riders will be selected in both this and the main game?

As of 19 January, teams entered are:
Afrank
Armchair Cyclist
Bicing
Del 1962
DJSprtsch
Fauniera
Florecita
Ingsve
Josedin
Karaev
Leadbelly
Ruudz0r
Search
Will 10
plus an overbudget submission from Ben1376.

 

[ingsve]

Sounds like an interesting game and I'll definately be participating.

 

[Master50]

A game who's object is to pick the biggest losers? Not a game that appeals to me. I see a certain irony here or maybe a twist. If a rider with good results gets popped does he go to the bottom of the losers list? You might get a lot of support for that out of the clinic since that seems to align with their view of the sport

 

[jsem94]

Yes, have been thinking about this one too. Will work on this during winter holidays.

 

[Afrank]

Too many CQ Games!!!

But it's okay, with snow on the ground preventing me from riding outside and school continuously getting canceled I need something to occupy my time with.

 

[jsem94]

I feel like this might end up being much more random than the original CQ game. I mean, picking Froome as a gamble thinking he gets injured early season, and then comes back in autumn just for some race days. This can easily lead to 2000+ profit from Froome alone.

But then again, are people willing to risk half their points like that. We'll see...

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Or indeed, holding out for him (or anyone else) being snared by the doping authorities on the 21st racing day of his season, resulting in suspension, but no retroactive ban. It is indeed more random, which is why I suggest a rather more light hearted approach.

If there is a retrospective ban and points reduction on anyone, then that riders 2013 score, as reported at the end of 2014, is what will determine his score. (But that would only happen if adverse results from 2013 races have not yet been disclosed, which seems highly unlikely.)

 

[jsem94]

So... I have to have exactly 15 riders? No less? I'm having a hard time finding the low point picks who will absolutely be in a deficit. I'd rather not submit a few than risk them turning a profit.

 

[ingsve]

So... I have to have exactly 15 riders? No less? I'm having a hard time finding the low point picks who will absolutely be in a deficit. I'd rather not submit a few than risk them turning a profit.

I would hope that there has to be 15 riders or more. If you allow fewer riders then you could pick for example 2 riders that had extremely good seasons and scored 2500 points each for example and then leave it at that but that sort of takes a lot of the fun out of the game. It's much harder but more fun to find a team of 15 riders within the budget. That I think will be the beauty of this game.

 

[jsem94]

Yup. A clarification is needed. OP writes "squad of 15 and a budget of 5000 points". Sounds like exactly 15 to me, but clarify please.

 

[search]

does it really make a difference? In theory you could always fill up the team with zero pointers ending their career.

 

[jsem94]

Hmm. True.

 

[Ruudz0r]

Whats the fun in that?

There should be a penalty for picking retired riders (also for example a retired rider who currently has a CQ value of 1).

 

[jsem94]

I agree with a potential penalty.

Right now, if the rider does not ride 20 race days, he gets 0 points. Maybe a rule that says if a rider does 0 race days, the score of that rider is -100 at the end of the year.

There are some problems with this, like riders getting banned and injured (like Ballan 2013), but it's a price to pay to get rid of retired riders.

 

[fauniera]

-100 is too hard a penalty i would say.

How are the race days counted, by the way? CQ is not reliable in this regard. One example: Großschartner had 13 racedays 2013 according to this (search for Austria), but 47 according to pcs. That's quite a difference.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Yup. A clarification is needed. OP writes "squad of 15 and a budget of 5000 points". Sounds like exactly 15 to me, but clarify please.

15 means 15. 5000 means anything up to and including 5000, but remember that your maximum score is your spend.

-100 is too hard a penalty i would say.

How are the race days counted, by the way? CQ is not reliable in this regard. One example: Großschartner had 13 racedays 2013 according to this (search for Austria), but 47 according to pcs. That's quite a difference.

CQ points are only available for races ranked n.1 or higher, so only racedays at level n.1 or higher count. That is what the CQ racedays count measures.

 

[fauniera]

CQ points are only available for races ranked n.1 or higher, so only racedays at level n.1 or higher count.

Well, that's not true. There are points for n.2 races as well, even for n.2u or Nations Cup races.

 

[manafana]

sometimes cq doesn't post full results, for some races it might not include the full results and thats were difference is

 

[mc_mountain]

with these games the best thing to do is let CQ be the final judge.

if CQ didnt count it as a race its not, for the purposes of the game, a race day. if a rider is spending his time doing a lot of 2.2 races so not being credited with all his race days, I'm not sure that is a big deal. (anyone have an example of a rider that might have been picked for a 2013 version of this game, with decent points from 2012 but expected to get less this year, that would have failed to get to 20 race days because was racing 2.2 races)

PCS is great but as far as I know they dont provide downloads of rankings/points scored or provide a list of riders' number of race days (other than on each rider's page), the former of which makes CQ games possible and the latter of which makes this game possible (but not without a lot of work I would think - although you might be able to get them to post the list as downloadable spreadsheet if you ask in the CQ forum)

 

[jsem94]

sometimes cq doesn't post full results, for some races it might not include the full results and thats were difference is

True. Sagan has 85 race days according to CQ, but that's because full results for all stages of stuff like Tour de San Luis weren't posted.

We have to come to conclusion on where the race date data should be taken from.

 

[fauniera]

with these games the best thing to do is let CQ be the final judge.

if CQ didnt count it as a race its not, for the purposes of the game, a race day.

Fine by me. It would probably be too much work otherwise. But it would be nice if this "strictly CQ rule" (or any other decision) would be made official. I would try to avoid riders from continental teams then, as they are likely to be under 20 racedays on CQ. Not easy, this game.

 

[jsem94]

Definitely not easy.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Well, that's not true. There are points for n.2 races as well, even for n.2u or Nations Cup races.

Yep, that was a silly mistake on my part for replying too rapidly.

sometimes cq doesn't post full results, for some races it might not include the full results and thats were difference is

with these games the best thing to do is let CQ be the final judge.

True. Sagan has 85 race days according to CQ, but that's because full results for all stages of stuff like Tour de San Luis weren't posted.

We have to come to conclusion on where the race date data should be taken from.

But it would be nice if this "strictly CQ rule" (or any other decision) would be made official.

OK: straight vote it is then, between CQ and PCS as source of days raced. I have only become aware of PCS relatively recently, and had already become fairly reliant on CQ as my go-to source, but PCS looks impressive enough to trust as reliable. On the basis of ease of finding days raced, I vote (change to) PCS as source of days raced.
Vote also advertised at Velorooms: please have the integrity to only vote in one place.

Vote closes end of 1st Jan (UK time).

 

[jsem94]

I vote PCS. Would be better for the game.

 

[Froome19]

It will be fun to follow this competition throughout the year