|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 7, 2013 8:10:20 GMT 12
Everything was said in fun, so no chilling out required.
Ranking might work better, but as most teams now only race two teams meeting per year and nothing else, ranking is impossible.
And ranking is an "overall" thing anyway. These seedings relate purely to this event and this event only.
You're right about the RWC being different though. This event is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!!
And if you DID invent a rule to say the "core" of the team had to remain intact to hold your seeding, who determines what the "core" is?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcfly on Feb 7, 2013 8:28:45 GMT 12
Everything was said in fun, so no chilling out required. Ranking might work better, but as most teams now only race two teams meeting per year and nothing else, ranking is impossible. And ranking is an "overall" thing anyway. These seedings relate purely to this event and this event only. You're right about the RWC being different though. This event is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!! And if you DID invent a rule to say the "core" of the team had to remain intact to hold your seeding, who determines what the "core" is? Which comp is more important? That depends on the following; if the allblacks win the WRC and the Hawkeyes don't win the teams then the RWC is far more important. If however the allblacks lose and hawkeyes win, then the teams is more important. BUT, if both the hawkeyes and the allblacks win then we have a big problem deciding  I guess if a rule was to be introduced around the core of a team you wouls surly have to say that 50% of team unchanged, seeding unchanged, but any more than 50% you lose the seeding? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 7, 2013 8:41:21 GMT 12
I guess if a rule was to be introduced around the core of a team you wouls surly have to say that 50% of team unchanged, seeding unchanged, but any more than 50% you lose the seeding? Just a thought. And what do you do once that team loses it's seeding? Move the next team up? And then if they name a team with more than 50% (3 of the 5 drivers) of the core intact, the draw is done and one driver has to pull out, you'd want the draw re-done? I think it's best to keep it simple, a team with a name is a team with a name, whoever is driving for them this year. I think if you do a poll on macgor's you'll find the PN Teams is ALWAYS more important than the RWC ;D |
|
stretch67
Full Member
turn right and hit hard
Posts: 196
|
Post by stretch67 on Feb 7, 2013 11:09:37 GMT 12
heres a novel approach if one teams wins it three years in a row they get seeded bottom following year and then the next 4 teams are seeded ...gee nelson.... palmy on 1st night and one not qualify in top 8 not good for spectators 2nd night
|
|
|
|
Post by mcfly on Feb 7, 2013 11:34:04 GMT 12
I guess if a rule was to be introduced around the core of a team you would surly have to say that 50% of team unchanged, seeding unchanged, but any more than 50% you lose the seeding? Just a thought. And what do you do once that team loses it's seeding? Move the next team up? The biggest problem would be with how late teams are confirmed these days. Maybe the first step could be to have a cut off date for confirming teams, say two weeks prior and any previously seeded team that is not confirmed by this date would lose their seeding - this would also encourage early confirmation making marketing etc easier. If a seeded team loses their place for naming late then that seeded position is not replaced. If a seeded team is confirmed with say three core drivers and then in the last two weeks one of the drivers pulls out then the reason for that would need to be examined. If it was due to injury or excessive car damage, that is pretty easy to confirm, and the team would hold its seeding. If it was not for these reasons then it could be said that the team may have only named the core to hold the seeding - this would be against the intent and would lead to the team losing the seeding. It is an advantage for seeded teams to retain their spot so I doubt you would see a team confirming a non core team early to lose the seeding, and then changing to a perceived stronger (previous core) team after the confirmation date. I can't see this being hard to implement, but it could lead to some good match ups on the first night. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 7, 2013 12:26:39 GMT 12
I can't see this being hard to implement, but it could lead to some good match ups on the first night. I kinda agree with your first point, it wouldn't be overly difficult to implement, but what I do struggle with is the point of the whole exercise? We already have some good match ups on the first night. You don't need the best two teams to meet to have a good race, the two worst teams can turn on a pearler, and the only thing you might possibly achieve, IMHO of course, is dramatically weakening Night 2. Most people already seem to say Night 1 is the better night anyway, one reason I suspect why teams 5-8 also now race on the second night........ I just don't see the point....... |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 7, 2013 12:28:10 GMT 12
I think seeding is the right way to go, but is fair to have a seeded team if the core of the team has changed? In this instance the team that placed the previous year no longer exists so should the 'new' team gain the advantage? Going back to this question; it's really only a "perceived" advantage in many cases. If the team is not up to scratch, they'll lose two races and be sent home soon enough. The draw saves nobody. |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Feb 7, 2013 13:35:16 GMT 12
Sorry for late reply mcfly, but I did put a smiley face on the response at the top. As Barry said, was said in jest. When ALL said and done, this is Bruce's baby and HE sees it as best to seed teams, most agree. Another track(HB?) can run a teams event unseeded if they wish, approach them. Teams event out rank RWC................any day.............  |
|
|
|
Post by tony27 on Feb 7, 2013 19:01:22 GMT 12
I think seeding is the right way to go, but is fair to have a seeded team if the core of the team has changed? In this instance the team that placed the previous year no longer exists so should the 'new' team gain the advantage? Going back to this question; it's really only a "perceived" advantage in many cases. If the team is not up to scratch, they'll lose two races and be sent home soon enough. The draw saves nobody. Perfect example of that is the scrappers last year from memory, had been in final the year before |
|
