NI Cross Country Results, Rnd 1

Tradition is a fine thing. It can also mean people do things without thinking. They don't need to think because that's the way it's always been done, and so, ipso facto, it must be the right way. They even make up all sorts of after-the-fact justifications for doing things the 'old' way.

Cross-country teams results are a case in point. Historically they were calculated off the points each team member got for their class placing. This traditional way has even been 'enshrined' in some ancient MNZ regulation. Well, despite what some people think, it was never done this way to enhance some sort of misguided cross-class competition.

(It's funny but the old way actually killed cross-class competition. Take the logical conclusion where each team is made up of the likely top three riders from each class. Each round, each team would have the same, or almost the same points. Work that one out.)

I'd lay odds that it was calculated this way because THAT WAS THE ONLY DATA AVAILABLE. It was NEVER the BEST way. It was the ONLY way to do it.

Now, thanks to a little technology, it's not the only way to do it. So, what is the problem, if any, with the old way and is there a viable alternative?

One problem with the old system is that, because a higher class placing benefits the team, it's good to have members from traditionally small classes. If teams consist of three people then it could even be a good strategy to find a class with only three or four entrants each round and make a team of the top three riders in this class. (cue the current 45+ class...)

Last year the 2-Stroke Over class would have been a good bet. For three of the rounds there were only THREE entrants. So a team with Sam Swanson and John O'Dea were guarenteed between 42 and 47 points as long as these riders could complete at least ONE lap. The top team (for the season) under such a points system would have been the Yamaha Team who averaged LESS THAN 60 points a round. So a third team member for our hypothetical team who could finish 8th or better in their class would make our hypothetical team almost unbeatable.

Considering that most classes only had about eight people at any one round this means just about anyone.

Awesome, eh. The top team could have ALL failed to pass the finish flag in three or more rounds and STILL won the competition.

Another problem is the number of equal placings that get thrown up. Small fields of riders spread out among SIX classes means that, for instance,

• 1-2-1 = 2-1-1 (72 pts)
• 1-1 = 6-6-3 = 3-4-9 (50 pts)
• 2-4-6 = 1-5-7 = 4-6-6 (55 pts)

  These are not rare occurances. There is often at least one such double-up, and occassionally more. Could these be resolved? Sure. How about giving the result to the highest number of highest placings? So, in example two (above) a team of two riders beats a team of three riders. You'd think that those two riders must be pretty good, wouldn't you. Well, no. They could have finished BEHIND the ALL the other riders from the two illustrative teams that also got 50 points. How's that? If they were the winners of the 2 stroke over class (one entry, did one lap) and the 45+ class (3 entries, all down a lap or two on the leaders)

  What about the ladies class? Are non-championship classes mentioned in the MNZ rules? Or is this another murky area. The strongest hypothetical team would probably now have to have Jan-Maree and Julie Greenslade, IF their ladies class placing was allowed.

  OK, let's make an arbitrary ruling that you HAVE to be in a championship class to be in a team.

  But, even without going on, the whole structure is starting to look cumbersome and stupid. When it was the only option then it was, by definition, a good option. With other possibilities now available it looks more and more like the donkey it is.

  ---

  So, why not just add up each team members laps and finish times? In this scenario the team with the greater laps and faster cumulative time, regardless of members, will do better.

  Is it perfect? No. Regardless of the system, the best will usually rise to the top. But at least consistency is now rewarded. If your team turns up to all rounds and all your members finish in the top half to three-quarters of the field then you're likely to be in the hunt come the end of the season. Teams who have bike troubles, who lose members at various rounds, and who otherwise have trouble at rounds will get punished with a lower placing. Seems fair.

  And guess what else?

  • There is very little chance of two teams ending on the same score for the day
  • There are no other 'exceptions' to worry about.
  • It is not dependant on how many riders are in each team members class.
  • It rewards consistency and participation, rather than luck and lack of entries.
  • It is simple to calculate and easy to understand.
  • On the day, the fastest team wins.

  You'd think it would be a shoe-in, a no-brainer... but no. Let's rather blow the dust off an ancient rule that used to be the only option, provided as guidance to organisers without choices, and shoot ourselves in the foot by insisting that anything other than 'tradition' is wrong.

  OK, I know that rules are rules, and if that's how you guys want to keep doing your team results than I am not the man to stand in the way of tradition.

  Despite having left 'tradition' behind three seasons ago we should now 'sort out' the teams situation by going back to the lottery of the past.

  I can understand why, when there is a challenge, the only option is to revert to the rules.... BUT...

  - I can't understand how it benefits anyone to make such a challenge...

  - mainly because I don't believe that the old system is 'better'...

  - but also because the new system benefits the very people making the challenge

  How often do you see people arguing that an antiquated system should be kept so that THEY can finish FURTHER DOWN the placings?

  Boof! There goes the other foot. Craziness.

  ---