Limited entry races and World Ranking Points

[Rick Stanziale]

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.

[Chris Barker]

66 - I will bite on this...

First, I think that the whole ranking process is in a downward spiral, but that is another topic. A few Euros skating cyber in an oily garage should not be 2-3x the points of last year's Dixie Cup.

I've attended many races and helped Gary organize all the events in Colorado.

There are only so many racers that you can qualify and race in a single day.
Then you want to have special races for women, kids, juniors.
Then the weather takes away one-half of your day.

So, I can understand why an organizer would want to limit the field. It sucks to pay your entry fee, travel, lodging, lose time at work, and then show up and not be able to race because you qualified 17th and the cutline was 16.

But, I think the priority should be based on ability (qualify in) or rankings (which are currently a big joke). Priority should not be based on who gets up at 5AM to signup. Priority should not be based on past attendance.

I understand the whole "Farm mentality". I understand they never wanted their race to be a "big" race. I know they stepped up (reluctantly) the last few years because the big boys all came to town to race for the precious crocks.

However, they were "voted" to be the largest points race on East Coast this year. Then they decide to change the date to the week before the largest points race in USA. And they limit the field to past attendees and whoever could signup the first day.

To me, this slams the whole ISSA ranking system even further.
Face it, I could take a podium at the Buckeye and still earn less points than if I just showed up at the Farm this year.

A true ranking system will allow equal access to the points, based only on racing ability (OPEN). If PRO/AM then limit each field as desired so it's not just about the Pros.

Any race that limits the field in any other way (RESTRICTED) should not be a part of the ranking process.

Race promoters should be able to run any kind of race they want. Rankings should not dictate what kind of race Tway wants the Farm to be. Tway should be able to choose if he wants his race to be a part of the whole convoluted ranking process.

Screw the points. It's supposed to reward performance as well as attendance, but it is really all about attending the largest races. Performance is only a secondary factor.

[Marty Schaub]

Rick,

Tell us what you think?

[Wesley Tucker]

Here's what I think:

As the sport grows (and it will) we (meaning everyone) will have to develop a system where points accrue at grass roots events (with unlimited registerants) and thus QUALIFY for the bigger major races.

This benefits in two ways: it more or less forces newbies to get more experience before taking the plunge at some huge wingding and it makes for a more fair system of restricting registration. Instead of registration being restricted based on first come, first served, it'll be more of a system that allows the more accomplished racers to know what to expect.

Also, it will encourage more and more grass roots events with 15 or 20 local racers trying hard to get those points.

I'm not talking about this happening in the next couple of weeks, but it is a way to make sure that everyone who goes to a big event will be presented the opportunity to race. It will also provide more impetus to organize and sustain a real die-hard grass roots scene.

The best example of this I can think of is the PGA: you gotta get your tour card before you can even think about going to a big money event.

[Pat Chewning]

Chris: The ISSA does not run the World Ranking System. I hope it does some day.


Small low-status (BASIC) races should be able to limit the race entry. Example: State Games of Oregon is limited to Amateurs only , residents of OR WA CA ID NV

Larger high-status (PRIME, MAJOR, MAIN) races should not be able to limit the race entries. Your FARM example is a good example. It should be either a higher-status race with open sign-up, or a fun event with no points. It can't be both.

The ranking system does have some problems that need fixing. But it still works mostly...

[Claude Regnier]

Everyone has made some great points. I've previously posted and agree that changes need to be made.

So, is this the start of the revue proccess or continuation. Last year we waited to long when we tried to change the status of the Dixie Cup. We can't change anything about the Farm either and we ain't trying, I know. Everyone will agree it's a great event points or no points.

So our goal should be to work on the problems and make modifications. All this while working with Corky.

As Pat stated the ISSA does not run the points ranking system. Maybe they did as some of the same people ran them both. Well there another crew in charge of ISSA and the goal for all of us should to resolve the issues so that when the 2007 race season starts the revised points system is in place.

[Marion Karr]

First, I must say that this year's Dixie Cup is a Main and we have limited the field. Our Main status was 'awarded' in the same manner as was the Farm's. We also created the LEGACY status to reward those racers who took a chance on us last year and actually came to our first race. LEGACY status assures that anyone who participated last year gets first chance to sign up for this year's race. This LEGACY status does not carry over from year to year and is only those people who attended the first year. When we made the decision to create this offer it was on the final day of the Dixie Cup and long before we even considered the chance we would be anything higher than a basic or prime. To keep our word we are following through with this commitment. Because we had only 44 riders attend our first race we still have slots available to get to the 56 positions that we have agreed upon for this year. Also, over time the number of returning LEGACY riders will be reduced through normal attrition. We are limiting the number to 56 because of our inability to handle many more participants at the particular time of year (due to day light savings time) and also time constraints of the festival that we are a part of.

Having said all of this, I do believe that limiting the field in races that have the higher points status is a problem. I can see where there could be some serious heartburn with those racers who are chasing points if because of sign up limits or other factors that they may be excluded from the opportunity of competing for those points. As a new race promoter I also understand that their are factors that play into the ability to handle a large number of participants in any given weekend.

It has been my understanding that even in those races like the Worlds and other events where there have been no limits to sign-ups, there has still been restricitions to participation based on qualifying. This in itself seems to be practical but it also places most beginners (not the Oles, Fadells, Baras, St. Clairs of the world) in a position where they are likely to travel to a 'bigger' race and not get to participate. Having said that, I think the idea that as our sport grows, which by sheer numbers of events seems to be the case, we need to have the higher level races (Mains, Majors) to be by invitation based on performance/points of some sort. Creating a strong grass roots feeder system or qualifying process would be the determining factor of who gets to participate in this system.

The argument against this process however, would be that it would greatly discourage or eliminate local participation. For example, looking at the Farm sign-up, the Nationals sign-up, even the Red Clay, and events in California, each race has a fairly heavy local/regional participant involvement. Races like the Farm may end up having less that than the numbers they have limited the event to in the first place. This could greatly deter race promoters from putting on races to begin with. The Dixie Cup last year even in its first race in a town that had a fledgling slalom interest, had its C Group almost exclusively populated by local and regional riders. If we had been a MAIN then and had used the pre-qualifying points system for participant selection no one in that C Group would have been eligible to race.


So the question still remains, what is the best solution to the challenges facing race promoters in managing the number of participants if that number is determined by the points status of the race? It is easy to sit back and say that "only those races that are willing to allow for a completely open field" should have the higher statuses. This could potentially limit the number of high points level races available because most race promoters may shy away from such a situation.

I am curious to see what everyone thinks on this matter.

[Hans Koraeus]

You are not allowed to limit racers because of geographical belonging if you want your event to be counted into the World Ranking. That is why there are Americans on the European Championships and non Americans in the US nationals.

If you want a race to support local participation maybe a high status race is not the best way. I had some discussion about an American State championship just wanting racers from that State to be able to participate. We agreed on that you may filter events on geographical belonging but only for low event statuses like BASIC and PLAIN since this will not have an important affect the outcome of the world rankings anyway. But for higher statuses PRIME, MAIN and MAJORS you can't.

A solution that was used in the European Champs in Stockholm 2005 was to announce two result lists in the end. One International and a second only with Europeans. That way you have the European Champs result list without affecting the World ranking.

Now it is of course ok to have a general limit of the field. And having a last date limit for registration if needed. And this is where we need to have some sort of rules of how to select 50 racers from maybe 75 racers who registered.

Here is a topic we started a while ago...

More comments on this topic

...but no rules have been decided.

Of course everyone may file a protest to the World Ranking office that will force some sort of action or rule to be set.

[Marion Karr]

Just a clarification: We do not limit the field based on geographical location. My point was that most races draw regional participation predominantly no matter how big they are. Look at the sign-up for the Worlds this year: with the exception of a small handful of riders coming from North America, the overwhelming majority of participants are from Europe.
In contrast, look at the sign ups for the Worlds in 2005 in California. A large number of riders participating in that Worlds are from California. Yet another example, look at the Farm sign up for this year, and the last several- even though that race has a strong draw throughout North America it still is predominantly New Englanders in the field.

Yet another example, look at the Nationals sign up in Colorado. Yes, there are alot of slalom racers in Colorado but how many of those racers from there that have signed up don't actually travel to too many races outside of their own state?

My point is just this: There is a flaw to having higher points status races limiting their field however, by developing some form of "pre-qualifying" or invitation only approach to these races it could adverserly impact the overall participation in those events.

[William Tway]

Yes the point system needs to be dealt with. Maybe for a race to be considered a Main...the promoter(s) must offer X amount of prize $ and the sign up must be unlimited. Or if the race is limited, the promoter must reserve a certain number of spots (and they must be filled) for Pros to guarantee the level of completion is worthy of a Main. The Buckeye is a great example. If Kenny hosts the race again next year and offers a large purse with an unlimited field, it should quailfy (under the revised points system) as a Main.

How to distribute the Mains next year?.... Whoever gets their shit together first and lists their event on the CC and meets all the necessary criteria..then it should be declared a Main. First come first serve.

The voting system has got to go.

Tway (Turning Pro @ the Farm)

[Hans Koraeus]

I was just reading through the registration info at the NCDSA contest calendar for The Farm 6.0 and I don't think I have ever seen a case like that where you give certain people a first chance to register before others. (Have not looked at Dixie Cup yet) This is of course not correct I think. Especially for a MAIN status event counted for the World Ranking. And having a limit of 56 riders (all classes included) seems a little bit low for such a main event but I guess that is not the problem. The problem if having such a low limit is that "normally" you hinder much of the local participation since normally the better racers will go before less good racers.

Everybody should of course have the same possibility to register under a reasonable time. If there are too many registered at that first time limit the organizers have to filter out the better racers and balance the different classes. The lower the limit the harder it is. And normally you don't want to put any limit on the pro side. Then comes the Am, Women and junior classes.

It is clearly stated that this is a grassroot race but then I can't understand why one want such a high status on that event. What say the organizers? What say the East coasters who voted this as a MAIN status event?

[Wesley Tucker]

The voting system has got to go.

Well, let's be clear: the voting system was never "here." It was an effort on my part last fall to stop what was becoming some really serious trash talk. It's one thing to build up one race, it's another entirely to try and elevate by just lowering everyone else's efforts. That's not the way to get the job done either.

Also, the vote was NEVER binding in any way. It was a poll. It was SOME SKATERS' OPINION, nothing more. I'm not apologizing for making the effort and for the most part I look at this year's racing schedule in the East and I'll have to say the Mains are what need to be Mains, the Primes are pretty much what should be Prime and the Basics are basic.

Should it be done next year? That depends. Let's see how the decision/compromise/determination process goes in the fall. If it's another bitchfest like last autumn, I'll probably put up another poll. Why? Because I can.

Just like anyone else can do if they want to take the time to make a bunch of topics in a forum.

[Hans Koraeus]

After looking at... More comments on this topic I see this not so bad idea...

Number of allowed racers in each class (Pro/Am/Women/Juniors) are decided by the event organizer but minimum limit should be...
Major: Pro 40, Am 50 (minimum 90 racer limit)
Main: Pro 32, Am 40 (minimum 72 racer limit)
Prime: Pro 16, Am 32 (minimum 48 racer limit)

- If more racers than the limit use this to filter out racers:
1. Event Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
2. Major Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 4 years)
3. Main Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 4 years)
4. Prime Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 2 year)
5. The first 16 racers, including ties, in the previous years event
6. The first 8 racers, including ties, in the current years Majors
7. The first 4 racers, including ties, in the current years Mains
8. The first 2 racers, including ties, in the current years Primes
9. The 16 leaders on the last years Final Official American Cup
10. The 16 leaders on the last years Final Official European Cup
11. The 32 leaders on the last years Final Official World Ranking
12. The first 8 racers, including ties, in the before previous years event
13. The first 8 racers, including ties, in the previous years Majors
14. The first 4 racers, including ties, in the previous years Mains
15. The first 2 racers, including ties, in the previous years Primes
16. According to the Official World Ranking published 1 month prior to the event


I think this could be a great help to the organizers in these situations. Notice the above is just minimum limitations. If you only have 16 pros registering for a MAIN event suddenly you will only have 16 pros and 40 Ams in the event which is... 56 racers.

[Chris Barker]

The Buckeye should be a Main. Kenny asked for it to be a Main. He will have the biggest purse and the most Pros of any race east of Colorado. Maybe even topping Colorado for purse size. In the "informal" poll that became formal, I voted for Main status for Buckeye.

It's going to be some fierce competition for the Ohio podiums this weekend. I can't wait.

As far as the Farm, I think only 4 Pros got in the list. This means that it won't even count as a PRO/OPEN race on the higher points scale because you need 8 pros for that. The world-wide ranking implication is that US Pros are screwed out of a main this year by the way the vote went down.

[Hans Koraeus]

Yet another idea.

If the Farm is really intended as a grass root event why not give away the MAIN status for the pro class to Buckeye. This might lower the pros coming to the event and open up for more places to Am. Women and juniors.

I'm just brainstorming here...

[Hans Koraeus]

And Chris is right that it does not help the East Coast (pro) racers limiting a MAIN status race like this. Normally you would like to open it up as much as possible so that as many racers as possible (in the region) can get high world ranking points.

[William Tway]

That's the entire problem with the East...there are only a handful of Fros. Even if the farm had an unlimited sign up....how many more pros would come....probably none. It all comes down to $$.

Pro Farmers?

Jason Mitchell
TK
Noah
Pirnack
Smart
13
Claude
Gravel
Hollien
Oles
Tway

[Troy Smart]

There happen to be quite a few "Fros" on the east coast.
"Fros" are now in fashion. I may even try and grow my own "Fro" since I am one of select few white guys who could actually do so.
Would this help my world ranking?
I think that it would slow me down a bit (unless I covered it with a tight dewrag of course).

Anyway, the problem seems to be that some races don't actually get points due because not enough notice was given.

Can't we rank races on who attends? Could'nt this even be done even after the fact?
We could use the current RACER ranking system (all we have for now) and come up with some kind of mean/average of talent and base the race rank on this.

It seems to me that this would solve the problem of races (like N.C. and the Buckeye) that blossom into something far beyond what they seemed to be at the setpoint.

[William Tway]

Hell now I can't edit my post.

Great points there Mr. Smart. I think you've solved the problem.

Fro more points for you.

[Chris Barker]

These are some good points being made.

Corky, can the Main for Pro be separated from Main for Open like that?

Tway, is your Pro list accurate?
- TK, Noah, Pirnack, Claude, Keith are 2005 Pros
- Smart, Oles, and Ohm could step up but are 2005 Ams
- Don't know about 13, Gravel, Marty, and yourself. Will we see you in Pro at Buckeye?

If there are less than 8 Pros at the Farm, then it is an Am race and doesn't carry the full Main points. There are at least 15 Pros in the field for Buckeye, but it is only a Prime, but carries Pro pointscale.

For Pros, points from either of these races will be thrown away when compared to points available at Nationals, La Costa, Hood, or Dixie.

[Marty Schaub]

Twayster,

I run am....

[Wesley Tucker]

I like the idea of determining a race's status after it's over.

All the ones where I do well will be MAJORS, MAINS and PRIMES.
All the one where I really suck and can't hardly qualify will be BASICS and PLAINS.

(Before some hapless wise ass makes the joke, "well, then all the races will be plain!" let me be brief: that was LAST year. This year things are shaping up a bit different.)

I'm being a tad facetious, but my drift is apparent. I can see where if a system is implemented where the status is set after the race is over, things could get even more heated. Not only arguments from those who do well wanting higher status for the event, but also from those who didn't go at all wanting a lower status.

I'm not for or against the idea, just putting out a possible wrench in the works.

[Troy Smart]

I'm not for or against the idea, just putting out a possible wrench in the works.[quote]



Well, there you go.

The real problem with slalom.

No matter how it's decided someone (hapless wise ass) will inevitably get there panty's in a bunch or just "put a wrench in the works" (for the greater good, of course).

[Wesley Tucker]

Yeah, I know. I just take and take and never give.

Compared to the countless hours and miles put in by others, who am I to put forth an argument for discussion? After all, whether or not Tway can type is so much more important than recognizing couterproductive situations.

Gee, i wish I could do something really good for this sport besides make wise ass comments and perpetrate negativity from afar.

[Rick Stanziale]

I filed a protest.

[Hans Koraeus]

Yes you can separate out Am and Pro class but...

1. My idea of giving it to Buckeye is way too late. I just realized it's this very weekend.
But one could imagine giving it away to another east coast Prime event like Chi-Town shoot out in September.

2. If you decide to do so (between organizers of the Farm and Chi-Town shoot out) then...
- The Farm will have Pro points with Prime status and all other classes as Main status.
- Chi Town will have Pro points with Main status and all other classes as Prime status.

It's complicated and not very straight forward and why it is not used often but it is possible.

But the main problem still here is that you can't say no to Pro riders who want to register (at least within reasonable limits according to my post above). Not for others as well. In the end there is a dead line and if too many has registered you have to filter out according to some sort of standard system (also see my post above).


Current World Ranking system
The World Ranking statuses are set in advance and are limited. So it is very clear to the riders what event is doing what towards the World Ranking. But World Ranking is of course not the only reason to go to a competition and Prime status events can very well hold a very respectable field and a classy set-up.

If someone with limited travel possibilities selects a Prime status event before a Main status event this may effect his World Ranking point in a negative way. At least it's very clear and in the hand of the individual racer himself.

The only risk you have in the current system depending on the actuall outcome of the event is that if there are less than 8 pros racing the pro points will be less than if 8 or more pros are showing up. This is the only affect an event may have depening on who really showed up on race day.

Don't forget that the world ranking system is an international ranking trying to balance different slalom regions in the world. No system can do this fairly of course so in the end a part of the game will be to use the system in your favor. I.e. travel to other regions and enter as many high status events as you can. Especially in regions with less developed slalom scene. You help yourself and you help the international slalom scene at the same time. It's built up to favor travel and disfavor staying at your home turf. But without forcing you to travel to each and every yearly event close by and far away from home. Very few have time, money and/or sponsors for that.

I.e. the ranking results shows not only skill but also a part of attendence and travel efforts. In my view important parts, even if quite small, of getting a good result on a World Ranking.

All this talk about skewed world ranking is wrong. The ranking is showing exactly the correct ranking list according to system used. If something is skewed it is more likley the understanding of the system used. The most often skewed reasoning is to only look at the skill factor of racers in the ranking but as explained before there are other parts that can boost or lower a racers result as well. Take any two racers you might think are incorrectly ranked and look into their race history and it will always (so far 100% of the time) be a logical reason for it. Feel free to try me out on that (in another topic). Vage comments on skewed rankings does not help much, but a specific case might.

[Hans Koraeus]

About the protest I agree that manipulating the startfield in an unfair way in an important event towards the World Ranking is wrong. There are solutions above of how to solve it. The World Ranking or anybody else have of course little power to enforce anything on an event organizer. It's all up to the organizer to do what he/she think is the best for their event. As it is for the World Ranking to do what is the best for the World Ranking.

Because of the Farm event protest I now feel responsible to make sure the problem is solved. As should the organizers and the east coast slalom racers. Mind that this is only a problem because of possible unfair effects on the World Ranking. Apart from that it seems to be a blast.

[Kevin Dunne]

Where can we see a copy of the protest?
Thanks

[Joe Iacovelli]

Rick,

Why did you edit your first post? Makes it seem like CB started this thread.

All,

We have not entered our open enrollment period yet. We have 56 people signed up, but not reserved until they pay. Unpaid spots will be released June 7th. People signing up at that time have one week to pay and then their slots are released. We don't even know yet that we will have 56 paid entrants.

Protesting that we are limiting the field is premature. Our field is neither full or finalized. It is merely temporarily frozen. Don't see how you can protest or rule to change points until we start turning people away.

Bite on that.

Joe

[Hans Koraeus]

The protest is about the Farm having limited entry in violation of the World Ranking rules.

The protest can't be granted since there are no official rules about how to limit a starting field. We have discussed just this problem though in this topic before.

But I agree with the protest that it is wrong to limit the field the way it is currently done for the Farm. This is against the spirit of the World Ranking. And in that sense the protest makes sense. I would not like to see this as a method in the future for registering racers to World Ranking events. You can't blame the organizers for doing so since there are no rules against it but let's just hope this will get solved correctly and that some rules are set up concering this as quickly as possible.

I can only urge all who wants to enter the Main status event "the Farm 6.0" this year to register themselves to the organizers. And then hopefully in the end it will get solved by itself. Because Joe is right it may not be a problem in the end.

[John Gilmour]

Money goes a long way to making any event a big deal. Points help too. Venue is a also a big deal as well as the quality of the promoter.

Awhile back I was sitting with a bunch of ski racers that were putting together their tour. Ski races are rated according to who attends. Guys on one team wanted to help out some of the novices get points so that the novices could get entry to other events. So they did "Points dumping' - .....A pro who already had several good results and would not be badly affected by a poor placing might lose to a team mate. Also some high ranked racers would get together and secretly decide to attend an obscure race and turn it into a big race. They other (outside of the loop) racers had no idea this was going on so they never had the chance to get points and just ignored what they assumed would be a little race. This also messed up things for promoters who were expecting lots of good racers to show only to find they went to some rinky dink race venue on the same weekend to dump points.

Invitational races and limiting race entries will make things more difficult. No one wants to be shut out of improving their ranking.

It would be better to have some of the events more flexible to process more racers. For instance if you have 32 racers you can do the cut to 16. If you have 64 racers you might only be able to take top 8 for time constraints. scary- but it might be a reality someday.

The ranking is somewhat of a tool to help teh sport for now. It will encourage travel- I personally am delighted when I see someone "points hunting" it means the system is doing what it was intended to do.

If some guy point hunts enough he might be able to get a points lead on some mid ranked racer who competes against a stronger field. The solution for that mid ranked racer...well...he might have to do a little "points hunting" himself. To be a world champion- you should have to travel the world a bit to do it.....and realistically you don't have to travel much- besides....who's wife doesn't want to get dragged to Paris, Antibes, or Riga?

What promoters need to do is have a way to manage overflow.

The best way to do that is to have multiple timers and multiple hills. Everyone qualifies- people are seeded and ran accordingly. If you have so many rcers registered..it could pay for Gesmer's expenses...and having Dan at a race is always a good thing.

[Hans Koraeus]

Awhile back I was sitting with a bunch of ski racers that were putting together their tour. Ski races are rated according to who attends. Guys on one team wanted to help out some of the novices get points so that the novices could get entry to other events. So they did "Points dumping' - .....A pro who already had several good results and would not be badly affected by a poor placing might lose to a team mate. Also some high ranked racers would get together and secretly decide to attend an obscure race and turn it into a big race. They other (outside of the loop) racers had no idea this was going on so they never had the chance to get points and just ignored what they assumed would be a little race. This also messed up things for promoters who were expecting lots of good racers to show only to find they went to some rinky dink race venue on the same weekend to dump points.

Very well pointed out John. This is exactly why the World Ranking system is constructed the way it is.