Comp Series Scoring - How does your club do it?

['04 Rubicon]

I need some input from some of the other clubs in regards to how you all run your points series.

Our club, VARCOR, keeps the total score from each event and adds them together to keep a running total. If you do not attend an event, you get 50 points per course as a DNS, which is usually 150 total points for the event missed. Here is how it was written in the beginning of our season - http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107545
This worked out well for us but some others are suggesting a different point system that I think is used in one of the southeast clubs. Essentially, the method would reward points based on the place you came in at an event. First place would get 21 points, second place 19 points, third 17 and so on until 10th place. Then each person after that would get 1 point for attending.

I'm not sold on that method and like the method we are using today in which your total score from all three courses from each event is tallied and added together to the other comps during the series. This year we had 7 events, of which only the best six would be kept at the end of the season to determine positions.

Please post up how your club keeps track and totals your point series to help us decide on how to do the next series. Pros and cons for each would be great. IMO, it's not as fair running the 21,19,17, method vs. the total score tallying method. What are some of your opinions or ideas?

Thanks.

 

[jetboat]

SCRC used the way you currently do... Add up the points from the season, 50 for each DNS and whoever has the smallest total is the champ....otherwise you might as well call it nascar :lol:

 

['04 Rubicon]

Thanks for the info jetboat.

I know there are more of you guys that can speak up on this topic. Your opinions are needed.
How many other clubs are running like this? And if your not, please explain how you keep track of your points series. I'm really looking for more input so we make an informed decision.

Thanks.

 

[jason]

At our events to keep track of the series points here is how we do it.

First place gets 250 points
Second place gets 245 points
On down to 50th place, then everyone else gets 0.

Then as a bouns we got back and look at the scores and you get 1 bonus series point if you set the low score on a course. If 5 people all tie for the lowest score then all 5 people get the bonus point.

So if we run an event with 5 courses, and you win the event, and set the lowest score on every course you will earn 255 points.

We then add your 2.2class series points with you superclass series points to determine our overall champion.

 

[GySgt Hartman]

If the course doesn’t change comp to comp for the whole season (e.g. permanent on-road or off-road), the use of the aggregate totals of each comp make sense.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
However, if you use a dynamic course that possibly one comp may be easy, the next comp very hard, anyone who misses an easy comp will be at a disadvantage versus someone who misses or throws out the tough one in the series standings.<o></o>
<o></o>
We all have lives, and the reality of needing to use a throw out for a missed comp is reality, so don’t give me the “you should have gone to all the comps” BS argument.<o></o>
<o></o>
MNRCRC uses the running score method, which I don’t agree with. Our last comp showed one of the flaws using the aggregate totals of each comp for the series standings. One competitor who was in first place had a very bad day (along with everyone else), up to this point his throw-out score was a negative number. He placed 9<SUP>th</SUP> in the comp with a bad score (46). This bad score was now his new throw-out, and the negative number that was previously the throw-out was now counted in the standings. With this one bad comp, he actually increased his lead in the season’s standings, you tell me, how does this make sense?<o></o>
<o></o>
Using the place a competitor has finished and applying a set value is used in most forms of autosport for series championship calculations. It allows the chance for close points races, keeping the smaller teams in the “points chase”.

Since series standings are used to determine who goes to nationals, it would make sense to standardized this method across all clubs.<o></o>

 

['04 Rubicon]

Thanks for the info Jason. I was hoping to hear from you. You guys have a lot more people than us, 50 places. Is that why you start with such a high number (250) for first place? How many events do you guys run and do you drop one or two, say run 8, keep the best 6 or something? Also, what happens if someone doesn't show up, they get zero points? I assume that you guys must compete in at least 4 events and have the highest score to go to nats in your club.

GySgt - Thanks for the feedback. I feel that some like the running total method and others like assigning points. I also wish that the USRCCA could somehow design a 'Standard' way for scoring a series. I guess that could be hard to do because the sizes of clubs vary so much and each one is different. If there was a certain 'rule' to keeping track of series scores, then all clubs could adhere to it, just like we do now with the comp rules.

Another thing I'd like to see standardized year to year is the number of events required in a season (4-6) to qualify for nationals, the season time frame (say November - June) and the cutoff date (June 30th). This would make it much easier to plan and design a 'Nats Qualifying' season if it were always the same. I think the nationals have always been around the same weekend each year, so why not. Our club had an issue this year with this because back in January, we could not determine how many events were needed. We thought we needed six events completed by July 1st in order to qualify for nats, so we sort of rushed the events to meet this, but then it turned out we only needed four by July 1st. If there was a standard number of events and cuttof date, there would have been no confusion. Ideally, for next year, I want to start the season with enough time to run 6 to 8 events by June 30th, and then only keep the top X scores, X being the number required to make it to nationals. This way, whoever wins our overall series, is the same person going to nationals. If we do not stop the series in June, that opens the door to someone being in first June 30th, meaning they've earned a spot to nationals, but then they could bomb out on a comp or two after the nats cutoff, and not win the overall series. IDK, maybe I'm just complaining. 8)

I am still interested in how some of the other clubs keep track of the points for a series. It's interesting now just to see how different we all are. I know there are more of you that can share info on this topic. Thanks

 

[TLTRyan]

We do our scoring by finishing position from each event.

1st = 10pts
2nd = 9pts,
3rd = 8pts and so on.
0 pts given for not attending, or not placing in the top 10.

We have tried the running total scoring method, but scoring by finishing position makes for a closer points series.

Then as a bouns we got back and look at the scores and you get 1 bonus series point if you set the low score on a course. If 5 people all tie for the lowest score then all 5 people get the bonus point.

We have been talking about doing a bonus points system like this.

 

['04 Rubicon]

We do our scoring by finishing position from each event.

1st = 10pts
2nd = 9pts,
3rd = 8pts and so on.
0 pts given for not attending, or not placing in the top 10.

We have tried the running total scoring method, but scoring by finishing position makes for a closer points series.

Thanks for the info Ryan. I appreciate the response, this is what I am looking for.

So that's 4 clubs that have replied and 4 different methods. I guess we all really do do things differently. Seems like we should do things the same since we use the same rules.

Another thing I'd like to see standardized year to year is the number of events required in a season (4-6) to qualify for nationals, the season time frame (say November - June) and the cutoff date (June 30th). This would make it much easier to plan and design a 'Nats Qualifying' season if it were always the same. I think the nationals have always been around the same weekend each year, so why not. Our club had an issue this year with this because back in January, we could not determine how many events were needed. We thought we needed six events completed by July 1st in order to qualify for nats, so we sort of rushed the events to meet this, but then it turned out we only needed four by July 1st. If there was a standard number of events and cuttof date, there would have been no confusion. Ideally, for next year, I want to start the season with enough time to run 6 to 8 events by June 30th, and then only keep the top X scores, X being the number required to make it to nationals. This way, whoever wins our overall series, is the same person going to nationals. If we do not stop the series in June, that opens the door to someone being in first June 30th, meaning they've earned a spot to nationals, but then they could bomb out on a comp or two after the nats cutoff, and not win the overall series. IDK, maybe I'm just complaining. 8)

Do any of you guys have any thoughts or opinions on the above comments? I would really like to see some standardization on the subjects mentioned. Please share your ideas as well.
Thanks

 

[wrightcs77]

Any other clubs have any comments. MNRCRC is discussing this this weekend and I would like to hear how others are doing the series scoring. I personally think that it should be based on finishing order, not on a running total/tally.

 

[renoirbud]

Here is how Carolina Rock Runners does it,

In 2009 we will have a Spring/Summer series that will have 6 events. To make it possible for everyone to have a chance, we are going to drop the two lowest scores.

We will run the following 3 classes, 1.9 comp, 2.2 comp and Super.

Scoring at the events will follow Current USRCCA rules.

Year end points will be awarded as follows, per event;

100 first
90 second
80 third
70 fourth
60 fith
50 sixth
40 seventh
30 eighth
20 ninth
10 tenth

3 point bonus for lowest score on a course

Only the four best scores will be used towards the championship and qualifying.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[wrightcs77]

That is about how I think we should do the scoring. It just seems that unless each comp is the same difficulty, the continuous tallying of points is too inconsistent. Add to the fact that when tallying points, you either have to have a bonus gate at every comp, or no bonus gates at all in order to be consistent.

 

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

OKRCRC goes like this, the winner of the event gets,

1st 100
2nd 99
3rd 98
4th 97
and so on

This keeps the series close and we do have throw outs.
We have 6 comps with 2 throw outs for the NATS series and 10 comps for the year series with 3 throwouts.