Nordic Ski Racer - cross country ski racing    
 
Home  |  Racing |  Training |  Rollerskiing |  Trails |  Weather |  Equipment |  Forums |  Photos & Video
 
NordicSkiRacer.com Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forums
 Michigan Cup Forum
 Scoring for Noquemanon
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Curt Peterson

USA
22 Posts

Posted - Jan 04 2006 :  4:00:41 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Would someone please explain the scoring for the Noque.

What is meant by:


"The Noquemanon Ski Marathon has been added this year on a trial basis. Only registered Michigan Cup skiers will score and the race will be scored like the White Pine and Vasa. Both skating and classic will be merged into one base on time for each distance. Scoring starts at 200 for the long race and 150 for the short race, going down by 1 point for men and 5 points for women."

In particular what how will skaters and classic be ranked? Is a first place in 51km skating scored just as high as first place in 51km classic. Being preferentially a classical skier I hope this means that a classical skier has an equal chance of fairly scoring points. It would not be a good idea to just compare times as we all can ski faster in freestyle than in classic. The Noque emphasizes the classic race as being as important as the freestyle race which is evidenced by many factory skiers doing the classic and with the classic starting out 1 hour early. Last year there were 155 sr. male classic 51km skiers with 4 factory team skiers and 310 sr. male freestyle with 1 factory team skier. This is not the case in the Vasa or White Pine. This could get tough but maybe a scoring system based on % back from the winner in each classification or % back from the top placing Mi Cup skier. Or we could equalize times and say the top finisher in classic has equal time to the top finisher in skating and then apply a factor. Looking at last years results, for example, a factor of 1.12 would be utilized and classic skiers times would reduce down by that factor. This could be a fairer system. What should not be allowed to happen is utilizing a scoring system the upsets personal choice in choosing disiplines for this race in future years. Again, the Noque has historically placed equal emphasis on both freestyle and classic. Anything that Michigan Cup does that changes or sways this equal emphasis would be wrong. Any comments or other ideas?

Regards, Curt Peterson

mmuha

USA
311 Posts

Posted - Jan 04 2006 :  8:20:58 PM  Show Profile  Visit mmuha's Homepage  Reply with Quote
My understanding is that, similar to the other marathons in the Michigan Cup, it's scored as a single race. Everyone's time, regardless of technique used, is rank-ordered by time, then places are assigned for Michigan Cup points.

Let me verify with Ernie...
Go to Top of Page

mmuha

USA
311 Posts

Posted - Jan 05 2006 :  09:49:34 AM  Show Profile  Visit mmuha's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Ernie says, "Yes that is correct."

Ernie also says that for all marathons, "the long race starts at 200 points for first and short race starts at 150 points for first. For the Noque only Mi Cup racers on a team roster will be scored (this is a trail basis trying to making scoring easier for Ken)."

Just so everyone knows, Ernie does not make these decisions. These rules are made by the Michigan Cup committee at the August meeting. The Michigan Cup Committee consists of a representative from each team racing in the Michigan Cup. So if anyone wants to change the rules, make sure you tell your team representative and make sure your representative shows up at the August meeting.
Go to Top of Page

Curt Peterson

USA
22 Posts

Posted - Jan 05 2006 :  12:57:41 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I really disagree with the planned scoring system for the Noquemanon which places stronger emphasis on freestyle vs. classic. As evidenced by my participation (or mostly lack of) in the races people know that I am not in this to maximize my Mich Cup points. I like to pick specific races and at other times I like to support Gussie as a coach, wax technician, and on race course feed support. But.... the Noque is different than the Vasa or White Pine that historically emphasize the freestyle long event. At the Noquemanon the classic is just as importanat as the freestyle and anybody who has attended this race knows what I am talking about.

Just for discussion lets make a few assumptions and please, I'm just mentioning some Mi Cup skiers for comparison and intend no negative connotations. In last years race Ivan Babikov won the classic 51km in a time of 2:35 while Matt Weier won the freestyle in 2:19. We all know that Babikov can beat Weier in a freestyle race by quite some margin. Merging Babikov's time into the freestyle ranks would have resulted in a placing of 18th place behind Mi cup skiers Chip Onthank, Todd Vigland, and Greg Worsnap who all raced really well with great placings in the top 20. Again I don't want to step on anybody's toes but I think Ivan Babikov skis faster freestyle than any Michigan Cup Skier. He won the nationals freestyle this year. So why would it be fair to have him place lower (if he were a Mich Cup skier)?

A brief history of scoring for Vasa and White Pine is that they were originally chosen to be scored and a specific race, the marathon length, was identified as the scoring race. That was fine. At some point an accomodation was made for the shorter race and for classic and hence the present method for Vasa and White Pine. The longer race still gets priority, as perhaps it should, because 200 points goes to the winner while the 25 km winner only gets 150 points. Here's the rub. Why is it fair though to say that freestyle is more important than classic which is the result of blending of the times. This is what needs to be discussed and changed before these races occur this year. My point of dissention is that unlike Vasa and White Pine, the Noquemanon really does place an equal emphasis on classic and I would agree that based on history we could leave scoring the same, as it is now, for both the Vasa and White Pine, but that we should not start out this year and simply give the same preference again to freestyle skiers at the Noque. Lets get it right the first time and not initiate a system that may cause some skiers to enter future races as freestyle to gain points with the unintended consequence of having less participation in the classic event.

One last comparison closer to home. I finished the 51km in 25th place with a time of 3:14. Using the factor mentioned in my first post (1.12), I would divide my time by 1.12 and then blend it into the freestyle ranks. This would have put me with a corrected/blended time of 2:53 which would be 64th place, behind some Mi cup skiers such as Ken Dawson (54) and Mike Seamon (50) which seems reasonable to me. Using the "as stated system" my actual time of 3:14 would put me in 140th place, essentially a true middle of the pack performance as there were 310 freestyle skiers. This is not right.........

Let's get this changed before this years Noquemanon.

Regards, Curt Peterson
Go to Top of Page

mmuha

USA
311 Posts

Posted - Jan 05 2006 :  8:42:52 PM  Show Profile  Visit mmuha's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Those kinds of decisions are done at the August meeting. The scoring for marathons has been done this way for the last several years - this is nothing new.

The thoughts at the Michigan Cup Committee meetings have been along the line of "Few people would do a marathon if we had a classic-only marathon. Instead of forcing people to skate, let's at least give the classic people some points by scoring them as 'freestyle' - after all, freestyle means using whatever technique you want."

Historiciall, the Michigan Cup is about maximizing participation and the committee has decided in favor of rules to that end.

(Personally, I'd love to have a classic-only marathon for Michigan Cup points).

I'm not disagree with your opinion, but the rules for the Cup have been posted on the web site for months and brochures with the rules have already been sent out. Now's not the time to change the rules.
Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 05 2006 :  11:02:43 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As a skier who, it seems, does better in classic, I tend to agree with Curt. I understand about the procedures being set in August, and I strongly feel that this should be a major point of discussion for next season. There should be some method of making every effort worth the best result possible. Just my 2 cents worth. Ray
Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 06 2006 :  7:02:34 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Spent some time thinking about this while I was trying to sleep last nite. Maybe I'm missing something, but why not give points for classic, and points for free, straight across the board. It would make for more points awarded at each multi-discipline race, but it would reward effort for each style. Still rolling this around in my hollow head. BOOM-BOOM FOR SNOW!!
Go to Top of Page

Curt Peterson

USA
22 Posts

Posted - Jan 08 2006 :  8:02:52 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes, Ray and others are on the right track. Connie Mendyk commented on this to me at the races over the weekend. Her idea is somewhat like Ray's and also has precedence in our scoring system of Mens categories and Womens categories. Since the women ranks have been lower in numbers they have a system of dropping down by 5 for each place based on a history of 5 times fewer women. When they improve that ratio I believe the intention has always been to cut the drop off in relation to participation. A similar concept was mentioned by Connie. Since at the Noque the ratio is 2/1 freestyle to classic, have the classic start at 200 and drop to 198,196, etc. The drop off or ratio could be calculated before the race based on the previous years participation.

Ray's idea by itself has merit as well without combining it with Connie's idea. Just have 2 different races that score.

Either of these are a big improvement over the disaster that is about to happen.

Any other ideas or suggestions are welcome. Regards, Curt
Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 09 2006 :  4:07:09 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The more I think about this, the more it is obvious that a change should be made in the system. I understand the procedure for scoring the half marathon different, it gives weight to the longer distance. I do not understand placing a classic skier among freestylers in the final point standing for a race. I realize that sometimes common sense is not common, but come on. There is a big inequity here that should be addressed. Lets be fair for everyone. BOOM-BOOM FOR SNOW! Ray
Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 16 2006 :  3:49:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Its me again. I'm really surprised by the lack of dialog on this subject. Are we that far out of line, or do most of you just not care?
I really think that we should think this over carefully and correct a fault in the way our competitions are scored. Let's get some more reactions to the concerns of several of us. Ray BOOM-BOOM FOR SNOW!!
Go to Top of Page

telewhacker

Bulgaria
62 Posts

Posted - Jan 18 2006 :  12:50:40 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have been considering striding the 50k Vasa this year rather than skating it. One of the biggest disincentives to striding is the huge hit I would take in Michigan Cup points.
If the intent of the Mich Cup system is to maximize participation, then it seems that a scoring system that skews racing in the marathons so strongly towards skating is somewhat counter productive.
I think a dual scoring system (200-198-196... for Classic, and 200, 199, 198 for skating) for the three marathons, would help to address the distortion in participation.

Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 19 2006 :  12:28:21 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you Telewacker. That's exactly what I proposed. How about some more reaction to this situation. I still want to know if we are off base or if we should push to correct this. Check in, tell how you feel, make some noise, pro or con. BOOM BOOM FOR SNOW! Ray
Go to Top of Page

freeheeler

8 Posts

Posted - Jan 19 2006 :  12:55:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
from an outsider, not involved in MI Cup standings, may I please make an observation. You are allowing the quest for points to prevent you from doing what you really want to do. If you want to stride, stride.

Remember you love this sport, not the points.
Go to Top of Page

Ray Drysdale

USA
48 Posts

Posted - Jan 20 2006 :  12:49:42 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Point well taken. However, if I am going to do something, I am going to try to do it right, and get just reward for my efforts. I am a 36 year National Ski Patroller, National # 5710, 31 year mountain safety and rescue instructor, 27 year medical team member at Michigan Winter Special Olympics, which may indicate somewhat where my dedication to the sport is. I just feel that reward should fit the effort. I'd still like to see more of you sound off with your opinions on this matter. Are we way off base or should we pursue this and correct what I feel is an area that needs fixing. BOOM BOOM FOR SNOW!! Ray
Go to Top of Page

Derek_Svoren

USA
11 Posts

Posted - Jan 20 2006 :  5:02:44 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I believe someone posted in the beginning of this thread that the time to address this would be at the organizational meeting in the summer/fall. I don't think we should just change the rules in the middle of the season, so the striders may have to suck it up this year and try to get things changed in the pre-season.

Now, my two cents say that in the larger (attendance-wise) races, like Noquie and Vasa, a separate scoring system for classic and freestyle is an interesting idea. So, if the committee were to entertain that notion in the offseason, I guess I'd support it.
Go to Top of Page

Fanslow

6 Posts

Posted - Jan 23 2006 :  09:18:06 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I dont want to get a higher score than a better skier because they are taking the arguably tougher route and striding while I'm skating. I have two suggestions to make scoring more fair. First, why not go by pooled rank in your respective race rather than time (ties go to the classic skier with all subsequent skiers shifted down). Second just count them as two seperate 200 pt races. If I skate I'd prefer option 2, if you want to bias toward classic, which I believe is the more elite race at Noque then go with option 1. My 2 cents.
Dave Fanslow
Go to Top of Page

dennypaull

1 Posts

Posted - Jan 26 2006 :  10:13:19 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
FIRSTLY, I HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO SKI THE CLASSIC AT THE NOQUE POINTS OR NO POINTS. SECONDLY, THE NOQUE CLASSIC IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WHITE PINE AND VASA IN MULTIPLE WAYS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT IT IS A STAND ALONE EVENT, HAS A MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF MICH CUP SKIERS (1:2 RATIO OF CLASSIC VS SKATERS WHERE THE WHITE PINE AND VASA WHICH ARE 1:4 AT BEST), AND THE CLASSIC IS THE MORE COMPETITIVE RACE. I AGREE WITH DAVE FANSLOW
IS THAT I THINK THE BEST OPTION FOR THIS RACE IS TO SCORE EACH ONE SEPERATELY AND STARTING AT 200. A SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO GIVE THE FIRST MICH CUP SKATER AND CLASSIC SKIER 200 POINT. THEN DIVIDE THE CLASSIC SKIES TIME BY THE SKATERS TIME AND USE THIS DECIMEL TO MULTIPLY
THE SKATERS TIME. THEN RANK ACCORDINGLY. WITH THE CURRENT 150 POINT AND DOWN FORMAT, NOT ONLY IS IT FURTHER MARGINALIZING THE CLASSIC SKIER BUT IS PROVIDING AN UNFAIR POINTS ADVANTAGE TO THE SKATERS IN THAT WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF GOOD SKATERS ARE OPTING FOR THE CLASSIC RACE. IT WATERS DOWN THE SKATE THEREBY ALLOWING SKATERS TO GET HIGHER POINTS THAN THEY ORDINARILY WOULD HAVE. MY PREFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO NOT COUNT EITHER RACE IF THE CURRENT 150 POINTS AND DOWN IS USED.

Go to Top of Page

Dell Todd

71 Posts

Posted - Jan 29 2006 :  10:51:23 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Some good ideas are coming through. I would like to add one, and I hope that we can actually have some discussion on this at the next Mich Cup summer meeting since that is the only discussion which counts, so I suppose some of us will have to actually "go" to the meeting so we can have that discussion ???

The American Ski Marathon Series designates the Noquey as a classic marathon. Anyone can go ahead & skate the other Noquey, but for the ASM, the money race is the classic race. Similarly, the Michigan Cup could designate the Noquey a classic race for Michigan Cup points. As always, if anyone wants to skate the other race, then that is a free option, but in this proposal only the classic race would be scored. Then scoring is handled just like the vasa, or any race, in that 200 points goes to the winner, whether he is a Factory Team skier or a GRNST skier.

I think it was not a mistake to add the Noquey to the Michigan Cup schedule. I ran into more Michigan Cup skiers this year than in my previous 3 or 4 Noqueys. I enjoy that race a lot, and enjoyed it more seeing all you all up there. By the way, it's a great classic race course.

Go GRNST !
Go to Top of Page

cmerwin

USA
1 Posts

Posted - Feb 23 2006 :  6:01:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greg & I were just discussing scoring last night! We feel that if the race organizers advertise 2 races (freestyle and classic) and give out places/prizes for two races, then the cup points should be for two races. I bet the August meeting will be alot more interesting (and well attended) this year!! Carole
Go to Top of Page

rickkraai

USA
5 Posts

Posted - Mar 15 2006 :  2:47:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit rickkraai's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The snow has settled and beginning to melt, but these questions and possible solutions should be brought up at the Relays so that our team representatives can gather broad input and reasoning from both their and other team partipants.
My version: I prefer the option to only score Classic in the Noque. It doesn't resolve the question as it may arise for other events, but it is my solution for this race. 2nd best option, and applicable to other events, is dual scoring classic and skate. This model may create more "perfect scores of 1000 points" for best skier, but maybe we need to count 6, 7, 8, or more races for best skier (while we may keep team scoring to best 5 races per person). The third best solution is that of Denny P, where we compute a multiplier/divisor to adjust race times of each skier and then rank. It seems a little tedious, but a computer spreadsheet and some template building should result in accurate results based on simple inputs of bib/division/elapsed time. These are the same inputs we use today.
Worst case: keep it as it was in 2006. At least it gets everybody talking.
I also add thanks to Curt Petersen for raising the issue. Our racing, scoring, scheduling and venues are assembled for us the racers. Our organizers and volunteers our true treasures, but it isn't fair of us to expect them to take all responsibility, do all the thinking and make all of the decisions. Likewise, each of us that critique the status quo must do so with diplomacy and tact. There is no need to search for personal motivations and then criticize each other. Let's remember that we have one of the few and certainly the best XC race program in the USA. Thanks MICUP captians, hosts, and sponsors!

Rick
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
NordicSkiRacer.com Forums © 2004-11 NordicSkiRacer.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000