R15 Championship Scoring

[snudge27]

I've rustled up a scoring spreadsheet for the R15 this afternoon (which I'll 'release' once we have confirmation on Andi's score for round 6), and I've been having a bit of a play about with it.

Something I've been pondering is whether a change in the scoring system would serve to make the championship a little closer and more competitive. I tried changing to the new F1 system of 25-18-15 etc., but that didn't change very much, but a system of 10-9-8-7 etc., made things much closer at the top.

Another thing I was pondering was making the scoring time-based. i.e. The winner of a round receives 100 points, and everyone else receives 100 points, minus the number of minutes they finished behind the winner by. For example:

1) A 3:00:00 - 100
2) B 3:05:00 - 95
3) C 3:17:00 - 83
4) D 3:29:00 - 71
5) E 3:45:00 - 55
6) F 4:01:00 - 39
7) G 4:25:00 - 15

What does everyone think? Are there any other suggestions?

A pre-round-6 version of the spreadsheet can be found here (https://rapidshare.com/files/1016649944/R15_Table.xlsm) if you want to play around and see what difference things make.

[snudge27]

Just to illustrate things, here is a comparison of the standings after Round 5 under three different scoring systems:

12-10-8

Andi 46
Glen 46
Myles 40
Peter 39
Kevin 34

10-9-8

Glen - 42
Andi - 39
Myles - 36
Peter - 35
Kevin - 34

100 minus gap

Andi - 399
Glen - 385
Peter - 368
Kevin - 346
Tangy - 302

[palkanetoijala31]

The only problem i can see with that is be very confusing to total up the scores but not impossible and how would u interpretate a non chamionship round 0

[snudge27]

The only problem i can see with that is be very confusing to total up the scores but not impossible and how would u interpretate a non chamionship round 0

What do you mean?

[MylesHSG]

The last ones rubbish

[Going Underground]

The only problem i can see with that is be very confusing to total up the scores but not impossible and how would u interpretate a non chamionship round 0

What do you mean?

Dropping a round, as only your best 5 form 6 count

[snudge27]

The only problem i can see with that is be very confusing to total up the scores but not impossible and how would u interpretate a non chamionship round 0

What do you mean?

Dropping a round, as only your best 5 form 6 count

I'm still a little confused.

If you're referring to the spreadsheet, I've used a score of zero to indicate a round in which someone has not participated. There is no need to take into account the whole five-from-six thing in the spreadsheet, as I have set it up to only consider the five best scores when calculating the total scores.

[jbom]

I've rustled up a scoring spreadsheet for the R15 this afternoon (which I'll 'release' once we have confirmation on Andi's score for round 6), and I've been having a bit of a play about with it.

Something I've been pondering is whether a change in the scoring system would serve to make the championship a little closer and more competitive. I tried changing to the new F1 system of 25-18-15 etc., but that didn't change very much, but a system of 10-9-8-7 etc., made things much closer at the top.

Another thing I was pondering was making the scoring time-based. i.e. The winner of a round receives 100 points, and everyone else receives 100 points, minus the number of minutes they finished behind the winner by. For example:

1) A 3:00:00 - 100
2) B 3:05:00 - 95
3) C 3:17:00 - 83
4) D 3:29:00 - 71
5) E 3:45:00 - 55
6) F 4:01:00 - 39
7) G 4:25:00 - 15

What does everyone think? Are there any other suggestions?

A pre-round-6 version of the spreadsheet can be found here (https://rapidshare.com/files/1016649944/R15_Table.xlsm) if you want to play around and see what difference things make.

In my opinion, gives inadequate credit for winning a close contest.