NROC - Share Your Ideas for Race Series

[jmac]

Here's another idea to consider. Rather than (or in addition to) awarding points based on finish order, how about awarding points based on time instead? [Edit: I see Birgit was thinking about this, too.]

Note that I mean relative time, not absolute time. Let me explain:

Every individual race would be "calibrated" by establishing the winner's time as the point of reference. The winner would be awarded a certain predetermined number of points, and all other finishers would then be awarded points based on how their time compares to that of the winner. This would be based on the difference between any one skater's time and the winner's time, taken as a fraction or percentage of the winner's time.

(If there are different categories or divisions of skaters competing within their group but not across groups — examples of such groups including Pro Elite Men, non-Pro women age 30–39, non-Pro men age 50–59, etc. — then the benchmark time for each group could be different, most likely being set by the fastest finisher of that group, if this is deemed to be the best policy. For instance, non-Pro women would not be benchmarked against Pro Men, but only against themselves.)

For example, suppose there's a marathon race in which the winner finishes in exactly 80 minutes (1:20:00). A skater who finishes in 80.8 minutes (1:20:48), or 48 seconds back, would be at +1% off the winning time; a skater who finishes 4 minutes back (1:24:00) would be at +5%; 20 minutes back (1:40:00) would be +25%; and so forth.

You would just have to choose a mathematical function to convert the diff percentages to number of points awarded. I've been experimenting with several candidates, and the best choice seems to be exponential functions of the form...

P = Pwin * exp(–a(tdiff/twin)^b)

...where Pwin is the number of points awarded to the winner; twin is the winning time; tdiff is the difference between the winning time and the time of the racer for whom we're computing points; and a and b are scaling factors that determine how steeply the number of points awarded drops off after the winner's time, and how quickly that initial drop levels out.

An interesting feature of a time-based points system is that it makes no difference how many competitors are in a given race. All that would matter is how much slower each racer was than the winner. This also means racers would be rewarded appropriately for finishing well ahead of their competitors (consider the solo-flyer Pro finishes at St. Paul and NorthShore this year, for example). It would also provide an incentive for racers who are "off the back" to keep working hard anyway so as to minimize their time difference, even if it doesn't affect their finish order.

Continuing with my example of a marathon won with a time of 1:20, and supposing we award the winner 100 points, ask yourself this... what finish time should be worth 90 points? 50 points? 10 points? etc.

Or, to put it another way, how many points should be awarded to a skater who finishes 5 seconds (0.1%) back? How about 48 seconds (1%)? Four minutes (5%)? Twenty minutes (25%)?

Cheers,
~ Justin

[tdellaringa]

Robert,

I'm glad I caught this discussion. I and some friends have been quietly developing a grand prix in the Minnesota region for the past two years, the Minnesota Inline Grand Prix...

Eric, that's pretty neat. However - I skated in two MN races last year, and I had *no idea* this even existed. This goes to my point of having a visible web site promoting the series, and even going further than that by actively marketing the series to skaters.

It seems to me that inline skaters are linked together via this web of online forums and teams. I know people on Team Rainbo talk to members of other teams and pass information. Plus, lots of people frequent skatelog, this forum and racereports.net (or all 3!) and possibly other forums - the word needs to be spread there as well.

Plus, I skated both SPIM and NSIM and visited your booth both times, I don't recall seeing anything about the Grand Prix at your booth either (maybe I missed it?)

For the Grand Prix, you've got one page of info listed under "2007 Race Schedule" - it's really buried there. I would never think to go to Adams web site to find a race series. There's nothing about winners there that I can find, or prizes given. The membership form says 2006 (although you apparently don't have to register). I skate on probably the biggest team in America with a lot of dedicated skaters who go to tons of races, and none of them ever mentioned this series once.

I don't mean to be slamming you Eric - I commend you for setting up a series. I hope you continue it as well. Having said that, let's make sure the NROC is heavily marketed, talked about and supported once it gets going. Registering a domain and putting up a web site are not big expenses these days. And posting to forums to get the word out doesn't take very long.

It would also probably be a good idea to send out literature to teams in the spring before it starts. You'd only need to send out stuff to the organizer of each team and have them make sure people know about it. We have a fairly good list of teams on our website:

http://www.teamrainbo.com/inline-speeds ... ed-states/

[Jim White]

I would like the Roller league to be the place where all race coordinators would post their event. So that all outdoor races is located at one place easy to find. At the moment it can be a bit confusing to find info about an event, and not all events are posted on all places where potential participants look.

Good idea!

[Jim White]

At skatelog, maybe here as well, there have been voices heard that races are too dominated of tactics and less by "let the fastest win" (the discussion was raised about the record at NSIM). Is that true or not

That is a correct summary of what's been said, but those voices don't have a valid criticism, IMO. This is road racing, not long track ice.

For most pro/elite skaters, the sport is one of strategy and tactics, a chess game in which the skater is a knight or queen or whatever. Physical ability is needed, but the challenges also include reading your oponents.

The voices calling for more emphasis on times are mostly non-pros, at least not the pros who are winning. Within those categories, results are completely based on times, AFAIK. (True, poor skaters can sometimes ride fast packs, but that's a different issue, unrelated to finish times.) People who are time-based skaters don't have any standing to try to change the sport for strategy skaters, the pros, for whom placement, rather than time, is the goal.

[tdellaringa]

I agree with the Jim on the strategy thing, and I'm not a pro, not by a long shot. But these are by definition *races* - certainly in the top divisions at least, so criticism against race tactics doesn't make sense to me.

But let's not get sidetracked on another discussion - there's some good ideas flowing here.

[sxevegan]

I think that no matter what will be decided, someone will come up with a "this is not fair" complaint. BUT I vote (if this can be voted for) that the series gets up and running with a big disclaimer, like: "this is the first year, we are trying to get it going, but do know it most likely needs a few years before its perfect". This way we will see if it will have any impact at all, both on sponsor interest, participation interest etc.

I agree, and i think it is important to state that even though we're all brainstorming and coming up with different ideas, we all agree that we really like the idea of this series and we'll all support it no matter what.

[jmac]

The voices calling for more emphasis on times are mostly non-pros, at least not the pros who are winning.

Is that so? Please cite the evidence on which you base this claim.

This is road racing, not long track ice. For most pro/elite skaters, the sport is one of strategy and tactics, a chess game in which the skater is a knight or queen or whatever. Physical ability is needed, but the challenges also include reading your opponents.

Strategy and tactics? ...A chess game? ...Reading one's opponents? — Gee, it sounds like you're describing the action in the Tour de France.

Which is, most definitely, road racing.

And which consists of a series of individual races (which they call stages).

And in which the winners of each individual race are determined by placement.

And in which the overall standings in the series are based on cumulative time, not placements.

Hmmmmmmmm. . . . . . . .

Seeing as how the most famous and successful pro/elite road-race series on the entire planet bases its standings on time rather than placements, I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't do the same.

[tdellaringa]

Hm, I got confused there then. I thought the issue was times within a single race, not for the overall series placements.

So the issue is placement within the series on basis of (accumulated) time vs. race position? Wasn't there a proposed point system just posted based on race position (not time?)

I certainly agree you have a pretty good model in the TDF. However there you are guaranteed that every contestant will participate in every stage (aside from injury, etc).

Here, there are no such guarantees. Are we saying that to compete for a title or placement you must compete in every series race to have a chance? (Or even a regional race to have a chance at regionals, should it go that way). That heavily favors people with big travel budgets.

I would venture to say that even among the pros, there will be people who cannot make every single race. How would that work within a cumulative time system?

[jmac]

I certainly agree you have a pretty good model in the TDF. However there you are guaranteed that every contestant will participate in every stage (aside from injury, etc). Here, there are no such guarantees. Are we saying that to compete for a title or placement you must compete in every series race to have a chance?

Excellent question, and I'm glad you asked. You're right, the TdF has no accommodation for people to race just some stages, whereas we need a system that does. And that's exactly the beauty of converting the times from each race into points on a calibrated scale. It makes each race "modular", allowing you to do things like count the best 3 results out of a set of 5 races, for example (which would allow people to attend as few as 3 of the 5 races without incurring a severe penalty).

[tdellaringa]

Ah, I understand now. Sounds good to me, thanks!

[The Major]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread so excuse me if I repeat something someone has already said. First on the topic of tactics, that's part of racing, end of discussion. You want results based on fasted time then you're talking time trials. There's really nothing else to discuss there.

I think for all but the top pro's times are important. I know I like to see how I finished compared to others in a given race. Or when a check results from a given race if there's no times given you don't know if the race had a breakaway or any other details other than finishing order so times are very important to me.

Now back to the series. I'm very interested in how this will be implimented and what the plan is to draw skaters.

Ahh, just looked at the time. Gotta go. I'll be back.

[Jim White]

Seeing as how the most famous and successful pro/elite road-race series on the entire planet bases its standings on time rather than placements, I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't do the same.

That's bicycling in France, I'm talking about skating in America. This Series is to support the sport, not morph it. The events in this Series will be those which are most popular with skaters; there's no basis to ask them, or their athletes, to change what they've done so well. Pros race for position, not time, as Major just said above.