Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Joe, 

You probably know the history of how we got to requirements better than anyone. 
The current rule evolved because of perceived abuses, i.e. wife would ride
so many miles that no other "husband/wife" team beat them and then the husband
does a 50 or two and they nail it down. 

So we have the percentage rule - which is a good one. However, I am not sure
it doesn't need some tweaking. The above abuse could been solved as easily
by stipulating the wife would get either 2 times her husband's miles or her
own miles: which ever was less. That would have had the same effect and would
not have lead to the situation we seem to have this year where is only a
few miles. The other option is to require the rider with the fewer number
of miles to have at least 300, 400 or 500, etc. take your pick. Or you could
allow each rider state up front before a ride that this ride does or does
not count, i.e. each rider will select the rides they want to apply for this
award. 

That would have solved the problem without establishing the cliff type qualifications:
one nanomile over and you fall off.  I doubt the BOD had the current type
of situation in mind when they changed the rule. Just another case of unintended
consequences.

Truman

Joe Long wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:15:38 -0800, "Steph Teeter"
> <steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Looking toward the future - this is an award, intended to recognize
> > accomplishments. Every other AERC award is based upon accumulated miles or
> > points - you just keep on earning them. In no other award will a rider
> > suddenly lose all previously accumulated points or miles, for any reason. To
> > me, it does not seem to be within the spirit of accomplishment and
> > achievement to disqualify (go back to zero) anybody from an award based on a
> > mathematical formula. If they don't earn it fine, if they are trying but
> > don't do the math, so only finish 2nd, that's fine too.  But to take away
> > all of the points previously earned seems a little odd, and it is something
> > that we may want to reconsider.
> >   
>
> I guess that's one way of looking at it.  As I see it, they haven't
> lost any points at all.  Each still has all of their individual points
> towards their individual awards, as well as all of their individual
> season and career miles.  If at season's end they qualify for the H/W
> award, by being married and meeting the mileage requirements, their
> points are totaled and the pair (who qualify) with the highest total
> wins.
>
> It may seem like they lost points due to the provisional listings
> month-by-month in Endurance News, but no points are final until
> season's end.