Phippsy:
You are absolutely right on both counts. VOS had 31 people who raced at least once this year, and Sierra Pacific are freakin' BIBLICAL. Bosch is Samson and Robertson is ... Can you help a poor agnostic with a satisfying simile??... Lord Almighty?

What's the ratio of kids per rider? Self employement entitles you to one extra exemption.

Only depenedents filed on 2007 returns will count.

I'm assuming bike racing is still "just for fun."

Recalculate.

:wink:

ZebraMan wrote:"Webcor: 185 riders currently 2484 points for 13.4 points per rider.
Davis Bike Club: 112 riders, 2241 points for 20.09 points per rider
Chico Corsa: 39 riders, 591 points for 15.15 points per rider."

Great job, guys.

Granted, Webcor is a tremendous organization and has an remarkable assemblage of champions, current and former; Davis is a world-class cycling club, a veritable breeding ground of tomorrow's pros. And no one parties like Chico Corsa.

BUT ... check out the BAT, friends. While the guys on the Team are far too high-class to toot their own horns, the Zebraman is too proud of the Team not to do so. Without a doubt or possible dispute, the most amazing success story of the 2008 season were the 23 guys in black who worked together all year as a Team and finished as the number 3 team on B.A.T.!

V.O.S. Racing: 23 riders, 1770 points for 76.95 points per racer.

Yowch. Chapeaux, mes amies.

Jess,

I count 34 guys on your club's roster (according to USA Cylcing), but that's still a very impressive 52.06 points/rider.

It's nearly double our Morgan Stanley total of 1581 points/60 riders = 26.35 points/rider, but not close to Sierra Pacific's ratio.

They scored 1116 points with only licensed 14 riders for 79.71 points/rider.

Chapeaux indeed!

A correction George, per USCF rules you can't be a racing member of more than one club at a time. As far as USAC is concerned if you have club XYZ listed on your license you can't also be a racing member of club ABC at the same time.

Using the ratio of points earned per rider would actually hurt the BAT program as it was originally designed. Doing a points per rider would encourage smaller clubs of hand picked riders. The problem is smaller clubs have a harder time promoting races ( since races are for the most part promoted by clubs and sponsored clubs have to either promote a race or help another club promote a race). Larger clubs have more resources to put on better races generally. Really the ranking should be called BAC ( Best all-round Club) since really there is probably more benefit in promoting larger well rounded club instead of smaller teams that focus on a specific category and this was the idea behind the BAT when it was started.

My understanding of clubs is just about anyone can join a "club" who pays the club dues ( Many riders are members of two or more CLUBS)

Therefore, Alto Velo is the club name.

Teams, as subsets of the clubs, are sometimes not open to everyone on the club. There may be additional fees and commitments to be considered a member of the "team".

Therefore, Webcor would more accurately describe their race team.

Some teams recruit riders to join their team and are not focusing on all categories and age groups. Naturally, if a team has a narrow focus and the team is hand picked, you'd expect that team to do exceptionally well. And BAT/BAR standings should reflect that.

Good to see you vouching for the Big Red S, Warren.
Truly they had a better ratio, but their result was hardly unexpected.

Actually, I'm surprised Casey hasn't entoned that the best BAT ratio per rider, obviously, was:

Symmetrics: 1 rider in the region with 126 points.

...Specialized Masters. On the track too.

And Webcor was very good on the track too, BAT at Masters Nat's. blah-blah-blah...

"Webcor: 185 riders currently 2484 points for 13.4 points per rider.
Davis Bike Club: 112 riders, 2241 points for 20.09 points per rider
Chico Corsa: 39 riders, 591 points for 15.15 points per rider."

Great job, guys.

Granted, Webcor is a tremendous organization and has an remarkable assemblage of champions, current and former; Davis is a world-class cycling club, a veritable breeding ground of tomorrow's pros. And no one parties like Chico Corsa.

BUT ... check out the BAT, friends. While the guys on the Team are far too high-class to toot their own horns, the Zebraman is too proud of the Team not to do so. Without a doubt or possible dispute, the most amazing success story of the 2008 season were the 23 guys in black who worked together all year as a Team and finished as the number 3 team on B.A.T.!

V.O.S. Racing: 23 riders, 1770 points for 76.95 points per racer.

Yowch. Chapeaux, mes amies.

Roaring Mouse Cycles
812 BAT points/ 31 members who raced road at least once = 26.19

proof that women make ALL the difference!

Webcor: 185 riders currently 2484 points for 13.4 points per rider.
Davis Bike Club: 112 riders, 2241 points for 20.09 points per rider
Chico Corsa: 39 riders, 591 points for 15.15 points per rider.

my findings.

dividing number of BAT points by # of licensed racers per team....
Davis Bike Club is unbelievably effective. cheers boys!

since BAT counts for nada (prizes, glory, ect.) for sake of comparison, this method will make you feel better about your clubs relative size/ effectivenesss.

or you could take the bait of BAT and RECRUIT & DEVELOPE MORE TALENT within your club. to me, that is the real goal of increasing your clubs BAT.

my 2 cents

good luck this recruiting season, go find some new women!

BAT is not a great indicator of how strong your team is. Our squad (Chico Corsa) only has about 700 points (after the Chico Crit is counted) but that is spread between about 10 individuals. When you live in the bay area you can race about two weekends a month without having to drive more than an hour, and do more races per weekend if you are a master. Living in Chico and not being a master ive had to drive A LOT to get in my 32 races this year. If you do look at the BAT standings its basically largest team to smallest team from top to bottom with a few outliers. Id like to see someone graph the number of racers on the squad vs the number of points they have to show this correlation.

Yea, I disagree. BAR isn't every man for himself. Bigger teams that can recruit bigger squads for individual races get better results for their racers. As a result, they have better chance in the BAR. So bigger teams have an advantage in the BAR too. It's not mano a mano.

Also, I disagree that BAT is a pointless competition. It is what it is. Just because it doesn't favor certain teams makes it far from pointless. You either choose to create a team that's big and strong enough to be competitive under the current rules or you don't. Hat's off to the Webcor's and DBC's, Morgan Stanley's and VOS's for creating such great teams. It's up to guys like us to create team's big and strong enough to knock'em off the top of the hill. If you care to play the game, then great, but if you don't... no shame in that either. You just have to temper your expectations. But I don't think that makes BAT a pointless competition.

Enjoy the off season guys.

That is basically my point. I have no problem with the BAR system, it's every man for himself and it works perfectly fine.

I have no problem with the BAT, those are the rules that you have to play by. My point is it's a pointless competition due to the disparity of the team sizes...THAT'S IT!!! I'm not crying because Webcore has 500 riders on their team (yes I exagerated)..maybe that is the point of the BAT that i'm missing..it's rewarding those teams that can build a huge roster?

I don't care what happens with the rules, just pointing out the problem with the system how it is. I'm not like those who get on here crying about the categories and try to change them up so they can have a chance of winning. I want to race the best guys period, and I would rather lose racing the best than win in some patheticly made up category that gave me a chance to beat weaker riders.

Having thought about this topic a little more, I think the issue with team size really comes down to being able to cover all the races more than having more riders in each individual race. Both are factors though.

Never intended to turn this into an arguement, just wanted to point out the flaws in the scoring. moving on.

Just offering my opinion. No universal truths here for sure....

Re the current BAR, at least in the Cat 4's and 3's....

It's not enough to get to all the races. It's like any other competition, there are rules. If you want to win, then use the current rules to your advantage. My 7 year old likes video games. I like NCNCA bike racing.

If you set out to win BAR, you have to choose the right races, then be good enough to score in them. If the rules were different, then I'm sure there'd be new complaints about how the new version was somehow biased or unfair. And, of course, having a lot of teammates in any race up's your chances of scoring points because you have guys to defend, cover breaks, etc.

Re the current BAT competition....

Bigger teams usually have bigger squads in each Cat at races. Bigger squads usually translates into better results (DBC in Jyly-Aug-Sept master's 4/5 races). The only real solution to the bigger teams issue I see is to equalize the number of guys on each team in each race... like they do in the pro's. I'm not promoting this approach at this level.

I have no problem with either competition as it's formatted now. The rules are pretty clear, and if you want to compete then you know what you have to do. I've raced on big and small teams. If the rules changed then I'd alter my strategy or not worry about trying to win. That's just me personally. I know other people have strong feelings about this.

Also, I'm a big fan of the DBC master's 4/5's team. They're good guys and racers, and have made me a better bike racer for it.

Sub wrote: It's comparable to letting five teams start the Tour with 9 riders and the lower teams starting with 1-2 riders then saying "well, the best team is the team that finished in front"...really? Great logic.

It is your logic that is flawed. Teams can have as many riders as they want in the BAT events. Just because your team can only get 3 guys on the start line is no fault of another club who, for a variety of reasons manages to have more riders on the start line.

And it is not simply a matter of getting more riders on the start line. It is about how many riders place well for the higher points.

But I agree with Bunny. Go to lots of races, score higher in the best all arounds. That says only a little about how good a rider or team is. I personally don't care much about "competitions" like that.

there's a reason we call it the Been to All the Races award...

WarrenG wrote:The best team is the one with the best places, yes? If Specific Bank can't do that they're not the best team.

It sounds like what you want is different divisions within BAT.

Uh, no not at all. I'm not one to try and reshape the rules so that they benefit myself. My life will go on regardless. My point is as it stands right now, the BAT is as much a measure of team size as it is "best all around team". If that is what everyone wants then great, i'm just throwing out ideas so that the competition can actually include all the teams and not just the few big teams. It's comparable to letting five teams start the Tour with 9 riders and the lower teams starting with 1-2 riders then saying "well, the best team is the team that finished in front"...really? Great logic.

The best team is the one with the best places, yes? If Specific Bank can't do that they're not the best team.

It sounds like what you want is different divisions within BAT.

I think some good ideas have been mentioned here, I guess I stirred something up. I'm not one to whine and I actually like being the underdog, but the BAT is really a competition that isn't a competition due to team sizes. Just go look at the size of the webcore roster then look at the pacific state bank roster..and I think we actually have a decent sized team but we are dwarfed by Webcore. I'm all for keeping the BAR the way it is, but change the BAT so big teams can't simply put 3-4 riders in the top ten at every race and have the competition be over before it started. I say count the top rider only, that will force teams to ride like a team if they want to improve their chances to win the BAT, and it will give that solo guy on a small team a chance to keep his team in the running.

Pretty much all of the local results on on the NCNCA road page. Promoters not sending in results to USAC really doesn't hinder the ability to track upgrade points.

Originally the BAT was suppose to be scored like collegiate races. Clubs would score points for a given day's racing and then teams would score points based on how they placed in that day's racing. For example say at the XYZ crit Club A wins the day scoring 100 points while Team B comes in second with 65 points and team C comes in third with 63 points. This means in the BAT scoring team A would get 15 points, team B would get 13 points and team C would get 12 points. This type of scoring system would help eliminate the advantage large clubs have.

How can you really be sure someone hasn't reached their upgrade points? If a promoter hasn't submitted results, no one will know about those points.

1. This all seems really complicated and time consuming. Perhaps there is a way to simplify the scoring.

2. Though, outnumbered by some of the bigger teams, we love BAR/BAT. But realistically, small teams have little hope of competing against larger ones. Maybe that is just something we have to deal with. There was discussion last year about dividing the teams based on size. Worth revisiting? (and if you simplify the scoring, this added complication won't seem so bad! :lol: )

A proposed solution: If we are really looking to score Best All-around Team should we be awarding points so deep? regardless of size, it seems to me the best all-around teams get people on the podium, not 4th, 7th, 10th. There would be fewer points to keep track of and it would reward working for a win vs size or non-team oriented.
I doubt there is a perfect system but maybe ours could stand to be tweaked?
just an idea.

Remember that per the BAR/BAT rules the the series ends after the last RR in Sept or the last weekend in Sept at the latest so any races after this coming weekend don't count for points.

Someone COULD HAVE over 120 points just by dominating the time trials.
San Bruno HC, King of Mtn, Exeter TT, Dunlap TT, Ross Hill TT, Satley TT counts double, Mt Diablo HC, Esparto TT, Folsom TT have posted results.
Those still effecting BAR include Warnerville TT, Mt Tam HC, Shasta HC.

None of those top tens would count towards an upgrade but would count towards BAR. In theory, someone could be leading BAR in any of these categories just with high placings in time trials: E3, E4, and 35+4/5. And for the E1/2--2nd, 35+---7th, 45+---3rd, 55+---5th.

And there are three left that can be credited towards BAR, and two individual categories are EXTREMELY close in points right now. Don't overlook the potential benefit of the time tial.

Great info Casey, thanks.

Also, in the 4's (Master's or Elites) any racer that placed well overall at Madera where there are no upgrade points available got double points.

The Madera overall, along with ITT's and smaller crits seem to be the places where Cat 4's can rack up BAR/BAT points without accumulating a lot of upgrade points.

WarrenG wrote:It seems like anybody with more than about 55 points in the 3, 4, or 5's would be subject to further review under the sandbagger clause.

A person can rack up a lot of points via TTs or crits with smaller fields where you don't get any upgrade points or very few upgrade points. Also in the 35+ 4/5s if a rider is a Cat 5 and places well then they can get a lot of points before the upgrade to Cat 4 and then they still have to earn 20 upgrade points before they stop earning BAR points.

It seems like anybody with more than about 55 points in the 3, 4, or 5's would be subject to further review under the sandbagger clause.

Just a reminder ( and a warning) that per the BAR/BAT rules riders stop earning points when they qualify for an upgrade. Since I have been busy with other things this year I haven't been tracking upgrade points as closely as in the past. This means that before we publish the final rankings I'll go through and figure out who in the top 5 or so in each category should get a points reduction due to earning points after the time they had qualified for an upgrade. Looks like a few riders in the top 10 of the 35+ 4/5 got BAR points after they had earned 20 upgrade points so those riders will be getting adjustments to their points and be dropping out of the top 10.

These adjustments will possibly affect the 4s, 3s, and 35+ 4/5 groups.

It sounds like you understand the relevance of the BAT for yourself and your teammates.

...And counting only the top 10 or 20 placings makes sense.

homsie wrote:Jess,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know the exact numbers of guys that these teams have, but certainly Active Athelete/Squadra, Wells Fargo, Fusion, Pacific Bank, Davis had large teams this year and had many guys (sometime 4-5) in races that I've been in (I'm mostly a crit guy). In any case, it still takes a lot for all of the members of the team to coordinate and race as a team, sometimes sacraficing their own result to help a teammate podium.

In any case, no worries, no offense taken. I'm enjoying the off season! Hope you are too.....

James

I ride for Pacific State Bank, and though there were a couple crits that we had 3-4 guys at and would usually all place in the top 10, there was maybe only 4-5 road races that we started with more than 2 guys. At alot of the road races, it's a race of attrition and it would come down to the strongest 15 or so guys so it doesn't take a whole lot of "team work" in those situations.

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not implying there are no strong riders on the team because there were quite a few but when you add that to the fact that they had our team out numbered significantly we had no chance. Not pointing fingers, just stating a fact. Not only does it matter at a particular race, but when you have a smaller team your guys just don't have the energy to make it to every race so there are alot of races where we are not represented at all.

Maybe to make the team competition actually mean something, they should take the points scored by the top rider, or top two riders in each race so that smaller teams have a chance. I believe a similar system is used at the big pro races for the team overall competition..the time of the top 2 riders of each stage. We still had 2nd place wrapped up but we only had one guy do 1-2 crits after the july 4th weekend (where we took 1st, 4th, 5th in the crit) due to injury or upgrade so Davis caught and passed us. We should have a bigger 3's team next year due to some riders coming up from the 4's, I've since upgraded so it won't help me at all.

Jess,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know the exact numbers of guys that these teams have, but certainly Active Athelete/Squadra, Wells Fargo, Fusion, Pacific Bank, Davis had large teams this year and had many guys (sometime 4-5) in races that I've been in (I'm mostly a crit guy). In any case, it still takes a lot for all of the members of the team to coordinate and race as a team, sometimes sacraficing their own result to help a teammate podium.

In any case, no worries, no offense taken. I'm enjoying the off season! Hope you are too.....

James

Now that was sarcasm.

Larry is a phenom. Look for even better from him next year. 8)

homsie wrote:Before you start making generalizations about a team that you don't know anything about, you better check the facts.

James Lo
Webcor/AV Elite 3

:oops: I'm sorry James. :cry: (Zebra tail between my legs.)

I was just taking an "irony pot shot" at Warren. It was just too titilating and I couldn't resist. (Warren has said in the past that I am "weak," and I guess this proves it. I'm a sarcasm addict.)

Although I would be interested to know what other NCNCA team has 15+ Elite Cat 3's, that is far too Caseyish to actually discuss, and irrelevant to this loving apology to the boys and girls who proudly wear the green.

I would also like to apologize to John Elgart and Mark Rodamaker and to the rest of the 55+ Webcor/Alto Velo squad on behalf of Larry "The Lone" Wolff, who it turns out was singlehandedly responsible for the team/club name gaffe that cost the team his 125 BAT points, and thus for my insensitive and ironic (and funny?) comment.

The tactics and teamwork of Webcor/Alto Velo are comprehensively etched in the psyche and consciousness of every NCNCA racer, and I hope that my zebraesque attempt at humor didn't in any way change what the peloton knows in its (collective) heart.

Please forgive me, Warren.

ZebraMan wrote:WarrenG wrote:In the 55+, if you combine the points from "Webcor/Alto Velo" with "Alto Velo" the standings aren't close. Similar combining could be done in other categories.

I just can't stay on the sidelines for this one, Warren.

Much as I love some of the boys and girls in green, they can't even coordinate as a team to get the team name straight for the NCNCA! Isn't that emblematic of what Sub wrote about having numbers versus having a team?

That's just the thing about irony, Warren .... it's just soooo coooool. :)

p.s. - updated 55+ standings following Folsom:

Master 55+

1 SJBC/SugarCRM 258
2 VOS Racing 252
3 Webcor/Alto Velo 248

Wait a second here Jess. So, you're applying a team naming issue (versus club name) that they had this year in the 55+ category to the Elite 3 team? Seems a bit of a stretch since our Elite 3 not only won BAT, but won by a large margin. Our Elite 3 team had maybe 15 total riders for the year. There are a number of other large teams out there that have similar numbers but didn't even come close to us in BAT. Before you start making generalizations about a team that you don't know anything about, you better check the facts.

James Lo
Webcor/AV Elite 3

This is directed to Casey...

I have two questions:

1) Are the separate Folsom 35+ 4/5 events going to be counted toward the 35+ BAR/BAT competitions? And please don't refer me to the BAR/BAT rules page. I know it now almost by heart. I'm asking because the current point standings only include Benicia and the NCNCA home page sites only 4 events left, Folsom not being mentioned. A simple yes or no will do.

2) Under BAR/BAT rules it is stated that,

"When a rider earns sufficient upgrade points to qualify for a Category upgrade (20 points for a Cat 4 or 25 points for a Cat 3) within the previous 12 month period, the rider will stop earning BAR and BAT points in their current category."

I can site all kinds of cases within the top 20 listed BAR 35+ 4/5 racers where this has not been done. Racers have been allowed to continue to score and get credit for BAR/BAT points beyond their scoring 20 upgrade points toward their Cat 3 upgrades. Why has this been done?

Thank you.

Jess, you apparently didn't comprehend ALL of the meaning in my agreement with James.

Add the 148 points for the riders who registered for races as Alto Velo and what happens to the 55+ standings? "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

WarrenG wrote:In the 55+, if you combine the points from "Webcor/Alto Velo" with "Alto Velo" the standings aren't close. Similar combining could be done in other categories.

I just can't stay on the sidelines for this one, Warren.

Much as I love some of the boys and girls in green, they can't even coordinate as a team to get the team name straight for the NCNCA! Isn't that emblematic of what Sub wrote about having numbers versus having a team?

That's just the thing about irony, Warren .... it's just soooo coooool. :)

p.s. - updated 55+ standings following Folsom:

Master 55+

1 SJBC/SugarCRM 258
2 VOS Racing 252
3 Webcor/Alto Velo 248

I agree with James.

Sub wrote:WarrenG wrote:In the 55+, if you combine the points from "Webcor/Alto Velo" with "Alto Velo" the standings aren't close. Similar combining could be done in other categories.

They should be winning alot of the team categories with the size of their squad. Had hopes of taking down the Cat 3 team tittle this year until I looked around in every race and we were outnumbered atleast 5 to 1. Not to say there are not strong individual riders on the team because there is, but when you have a big enough squad to send 5-10 riders to every single race it's pretty much a guarantee.

Hmmm, how many guys do you have on your team, two? :-) All kidding aside, it takes more than just putting a bunch of guys in a race to actually win or place in the top 10. Yeah, you increase your chances by entering more guys, but I've seen many races where teams have had the numbers and haven't done anything to control or influence the outcome of a race.

James

WarrenG wrote:In the 55+, if you combine the points from "Webcor/Alto Velo" with "Alto Velo" the standings aren't close. Similar combining could be done in other categories.

They should be winning alot of the team categories with the size of their squad. Had hopes of taking down the Cat 3 team tittle this year until I looked around in every race and we were outnumbered atleast 5 to 1. Not to say there are not strong individual riders on the team because there is, but when you have a big enough squad to send 5-10 riders to every single race it's pretty much a guarantee.

No the race Ad listed + age groups ( like last year). If you want to prevent a rider from doing multi races all the promoter has to do is state in the race ad that riders can only do one race.

casey wrote:Technically if the promoter doesn't provide NCNCA with results in the correct format then the race shouldn't be part of the BAR/BAT.

The Masters crit was + age groups ( ie 30+ 35+ 40+ ) so the Crit counts. The TT should be the only championship that wasn't a + race and thus not count.

I thought the crits were age capped (30-34, etc.) to prevent certain 45+ riders from entering more than 1 race :D (not a problem in road race since most groups are racing at the same time).

the current standings do not appear to include the Folsom races....

Technically if the promoter doesn't provide NCNCA with results in the correct format then the race shouldn't be part of the BAR/BAT.

The Masters crit was + age groups ( ie 30+ 35+ 40+ ) so the Crit counts. The TT should be the only championship that wasn't a + race and thus not count.

Any reason why the Tour de Nez didn't count for 35+ 1/2/3?

Other than the fact that results were never posted. :)

Also, while we're on the subject, I understand that in the masters RR only the 35+ race (and not the 40+) counts toward 35+ 1/2/3 BAR points, but what about the masters criterium and TT? Since both of those have upper limits (35-39 and 40-44) they don't count toward BAR, correct?

And by the way, thanks for all the work in compiling all the BAR/BAT information!

Ok yea I forgot that the race could count for Cat 3s and only Cat 3s

From the 2008 BAR/BAT schedule page at http://www.ncnca.org/barbat/BAR-events08.shtml

9/13/2008 - San Francisco Twilight Criterium
Cat 3/4 (Cat 3),

SF Twilight isn't a race that counts towards BAR/BAT. Cat 3/4 races don't count and since the 1/2 races were invitational events NCNCA felt that it shouldn't be counted since the promoter was free to pick what ever riders they wanted to include into the race.

Just wanted to confirm, these point are current and include Folsom and SF Twilight? if so, thanks for the quick turnaround...

In the 55+, if you combine the points from "Webcor/Alto Velo" with "Alto Velo" the standings aren't close. Similar combining could be done in other categories.