Results and Rankings.

[greywolf]

For those of you who are the wrong side of 40, and harder training to improve your ranking points is not an option:

How to boost your ranking points.doc

Most of which (you'll do better on familiar terrain, at a distance that suits you, and competing against the injured) falls into the category of stating the bleedin' obvious...

However the assertion that taking the best 6 scores is a "flaw" and that the system should use the middle 6 scores instead is IMHO misplaced.

Trimming off the best (and worst) one or two scores is fine if everyone gets to 20 ranking events, but the reality is that lots of folk don't have a "middle" 6 scores: 30-40% of those in the list don't have 6 scores, and there will be plenty of others with 6 or 7 scores. (And if you only start trimming once an individual has 6 or more scores, then you let them keep any anomalous scores, and put them in the paradoxical position of not wanting to go to a ranking event because they will drop in the rankings regardless of how they do...)

And most individuals (especially those at the top of the lists) have a very consistent set of top 6 scores: e.g. most of the top 20 have all six scores in a range of 30 or so (Oleg's 6 best are in a range of just 6 points). Yes there have been anomalous scores, some of which have been cleared up by tweaks (or correcting data entry errors) - but they don't affect that many of us (unfortunately, I could do with a couple myself...)

[IanD]

However the assertion that taking the best 6 scores is a "flaw" and that the system should use the middle 6 scores instead is IMHO misplaced.

I think that from a pure statistical viewpoint, it is a flaw.

However, from not a statistical but an incentive point of view, it is thought important that nobody should ever lose ranking points as a consequence of attending an extra event. Therefore it is important that this "flaw" stays in the system.

A compromise which might keep the pure statisticians happy would be to disregard, say, each person's highest three scores. And then take the highest six of those remaining.

The major disadvantage of this would be that one would need four events to appear on the ranking list at all, and would only achieve the maximum number of scoring events after nine events rather than six.

I'm not advocating this change, I think the system is more appropriate as it is.

[awk]

but they don't affect that many of us (unfortunately, I could do with a couple myself...)

Surely they do, in that, with some people benefitting from them and rising up the list as a result, you lose out by not having one. Written from the perspective of another who could do with a couple as well

[SIman]

I have just learnt that there will be no ranking points awarded for the BUCS individual championships. Apparently because it is a closed event, it is excluded from the ranking calculations.

It seems to me that if A beat B beat C beat D......the fact that X , Y and Z were not able to enter is quite irrelevant for the way in which points are worked out.

Am I missing something?

[andypat]

Ranking points were awarded for last years WOC Sprint selection race at Erskine which wasnt exactly an "open" race either....

[greywolf]

I have just learnt that there will be no ranking points awarded for the BUCS individual championships. Apparently because it is a closed event, it is excluded from the ranking calculations.

Not sure where or who you learned it from, but it/they were misinformed.
Nothing in the published guidance or Appendix K excludes closed races, indeed the latter says:
1.2 Inclusion of Events
1.2.1 All Events at Levels A, B and C are required to contribute subject to the conditions in 1.2.2.
1.2.2 Night events, Relay, Score, Chasing Start and other mass start events may give anomalous results and are excluded from the Rankings scheme.
So as a Level C event it is required to be ranked

WOC trials are open races...but CSC final isn't

[EddieH]

Despite the rules the results are on the BOF website without ranking points attached. Quite clearly a nonsense - the whole point about the system is that it doesn't matter whom you run against - points are all relative to normal performance.

[graeme]

A compromise which might keep the pure statisticians happy would be to disregard, say, each person's highest three scores. And then take the highest six of those remaining.

Not sure pure statisticians would be happy about such arbitrariness. More likely they'd want the statistics done correctly... anyway,
You should do the statistics using *all* the scores.
You should present only the top scores for incentive purposes, as you say.

which is what is done!

For sure, there are problems with the system (surely some runners should be in the top 5% of the assumed distribution?), but the majority of suggestions I've seen would only make them worse.

[DM]

Could someone from WCOC comment on whether results have/will be submitted to BOF for ranking purposes?

It would be a pity for all who took the trouble to go to a ranking event if they ended up with no points.

Many thanks to the club for the event itself, must be a first to be pushed ONTO the car parking field.

Edit; Understand it is in hand

[229]

.

[SIman]

I have been told by the BOF office that there are no points because it was a closed event.
Other posts have pointed out that there is nothing in the published rules to justify that decision, but I am not sure who has the power to get it changed.

[Tatty]

Isn't the YBT Final a closed event?

[SJC]

and the Compass Sport Cup Final ?

[NeilC]

but I am not sure who has the power to get it changed.

Try Mike Hamilton directly. It does seem that no BOF committee or group currently has responsibility for the ranking system so all decisions are presumably being made by the Chief Executive or the Board.

[Spookster]

I am not sure who has the power to get it changed.

Are you trying to change the rule (Appendix K), or change the implementation of the rules?