Re: RC: weight division points

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

Steph
Although I disagree with changing the calculations, I believe the debate is 
healthy.
However, after you get to read Randy's letter as published you may 
understand my other concern. The present system was brushed off as a 
"mistake" rather than a conscious decision by the board at the time (which 
it was). We were told the board would be "correcting" the matter. I find 
this cavalier attempt to change of one of the fundamental functions of AERC 
rather alarming. Issues like this often seem to crop up just a few weeks 
before the convention, not allowing time for anyone to think through all the 
ramifications of change. As a current board member, please to do fall victim 
to mistakes of the past. Rides for the 2000 ride season have already taken 
place under the present system. Do not make a hurried decision to change 
things without time for proper membership input. However well intentioned 
this may be, it gives the appearance of trying to slip something by the 
membership.
Nancy Mitts

>From: "Steph Teeter" <steph@endurance.net>
>Reply-To: <steph@endurance.net>
>To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
>Subject: RC:  weight division points
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:19:50 -0800
>
>Here's a new topic to discuss:
>
>Most of you have probably read Randy Eiland's message in the recent
>EN by now, discussing the current method of calculating points for
>AERC in weight divisions.  I haven't read the article myself yet, but
>assume that the jist of it is that the current method may not be the
>'right' method. I tend to agree with Randy on this, but have heard from
>others that they strongly dissagree ... so I'd like to hear from more of
>you on the subject.
>
>Here's an explanation of the way it is, and the way it could be different.
>
>Now: Overall (non weight division) points are based upon overall placement
>in the field. 1 point per mile is awarded all finishers in a 50 mile ride,
>and
>bonus points are awarded for top ten finishers.  The higher the placement,
>the
>greater number of bonus points. BUT, maximum bonus points are awarded only
>if a least 11 riders start.  If 11 riders start, first place rider gets 150
>points, last place rider gets 50 points. If less than 11 riders start, the
>bonus
>points are reduced, with worst case scenario being 1 starting rider, first
>place
>finisher receives 50 points (no bonus).   There is a direct relationship
>between the number of overall riders and the amount of overall points.
>
>Now: Weight Division points are based upon placement of riders within
>their weight division. i.e. the first middleweight rider gets maximum bonus
>points.  But, bonus points for weight divisions are based upon the number
>of Overall starters, not the number of starters in each weight division.
>If 11 overall riders start, the first middle weight rider receives 150
>points (maximum bonus ) points regardless of the number of middlewight
>starters.  This person may be the only middleweight in the race and may
>finish
>last overall, but they still get 150 points.
>
>(btw the points are even higher on 100 mile rides - first to finish in a
>full
>field gets 450 points. If you're the only middleweight in a full ride and
>you
>simply finish (any placement) you get 450 weight division points.
>
>Another Scenario: Weight Division points are based upon the placement of
>riders within their weight division, and bonus points are awarded based
>upon the number of riders in each weight division (rather than overall
>starters).
>So in order to get full bonus points for a first to finish middleweight,
>there must
>be at least 11 middleweight starters.
>
>If you want to see the way the bonus points are actually distributed, check
>the AERC Rules & Regulations (www.aerc.org).
>
>Comments? Should it stay the way it is regarding weight division points,
>or change it to reflect the actual number of starters in each weight
>division.
>Maybe a smaller number of weight division starters than the 11 used for
>overall points?
>
>Steph
>
>sunshine :)
>
>
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
>Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=