USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring ...
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring Introduction: In the coming months, USA Cycling will begin work building Collegiate Omnium Rankings into its website, centralizing the process into one location using one scoring structure. There are no plans to make it mandatory for conferences to adopt a national standard, but we think there are a multitude of benefits to adopting such a uniform, centralized structure.
What follows is an outline of how conference omniums would be calculated, in particular highlighting a few differences from current scoring structures in the 11 conferences.
Overall Scoring Structure:
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring Variance #1: Team Points vs Raw Sum of Individual Points Background: In most conferences, a team’s score is arrived at by summing the top 4 riders’ points from each category from each race. In three conferences and at National Championships, however, teams are ranked after each race based on those raw sums, and a new set of points are assigned to each team based on those ranks. The current proposed standard would use a 20-place, 50-point Team Points scale for Team Omnium ranking.
Team Points 1
50
11
11
2
43
12
9
3
37
13
8
4
32
14
7
5
28
15
6
6
24
16
5
7
21
17
4
8
18
18
3
9
15
19
2
10
13
20
1
Advantages:
Gender equality: Team Points ensure that men’s and women’s races are always weighted equally. For example, on any given weekend, regardless of how large the women’s fields are, there are still 50 points up for grabs for the team with the most individual points earned in the women’s Road Races, the exact same number of points that are available for the team with most individual points earned in the men’s Road Races on that same weekend. This makes it very difficult for a single-gender team to defeat a mixed-gender team over the course of the weekend and the season. When was the last time you saw a single-gender team at the top of the podium at Nationals? Not only is it the fairest approach in the first place, but it also encourages the recruitment of women to the sport. This is by far the most important reason to implement Team Points, and also where it would most likely have the most significant impact.
Close competition: Team Points ensure that a single team can’t easily earn or keep an undefeatable margin of victory in the Team Omnium. For example, regardless of a winning team’s margin of victory in the Individual Points sum, their margin is inherently limited to a predetermined number of points using Team Points, keeping them within reach of the competition. This keeps competition close, and forces teams to come back weekend after weekend by preventing them from taking an 8000 point lead and then blowing off the rest of the season. In the end, provided they maintain their performance through the season, that team would still be in the lead, but by a smaller margin.
Drawbacks:
Transparency: By adding another layer of points that wipe out each individual rider’s Individual Points, what little bit of clarity that previously existed in the Collegiate Cycling scoring process goes out the window. Although it is difficult with a Raw Sum scoring process, it is downright impossible with a Team Points scale to
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring know instinctively who has won the Team Omnium until calculations are processed. This transfers the moment of suspense from the race itself to the guy with the computer, which, admittedly, isn’t as much fun.
Variance #2: D1 & D2 Together
Background: Some conferences score and rank the divisions separately within each race and over the course of the season; some just for teams, and other for both individuals and teams. Other conferences, however, score and rank their riders and teams exactly as they race: together. The current proposed standard would score and rank teams together, but would allow for teams to be ranked separately by division if desired (necessary for nationals qualifications, as well).
Advantages:
Race dynamics: By scoring a single race separately based on division, one race quickly becomes two, allowing for unfair tactics and alliances between teams of different divisions, which should be avoided if at all possible.
Clarity: As mentioned above, the Collegiate Cycling points scoring process is complicated enough, without rd
adding additional levels of complexity for the riders where they aren’t necessary. If a rider finishes 3 in a race, s/he doesn’t need to be thinking about the division of the riders ahead and behind him.
Drawbacks:
Extended Individual Points: Although it doesn’t appear to be an actual issue in any conferences with one division that is more dominant than the other, it is possible that an extended individual points table might be warranted to allow for the less dominant division to still earn points and be ranked against one another. We’ve witnessed this issue at USA Cycling Collegiate Track National Championships, where points used to go 20 places deep and now go 30 deep so that Division II schools could still be ranked more effectively against one another.
Variance #3: Dropped Races
Background: This is the most contentious variation between conferences. Do all races count toward an individual and team’s overall score, or does a certain number get dropped, to account for long driving times and the fact that students will inevitably need to miss races now and then due to schoolwork? The current proposed standard would count all race results toward both the team and individual omniums.
Advantages:
Fairness: For those individuals and teams that are able to attend more races than their competition, it’s only fair that their efforts and investments are rewarded correlatively. This will mean that the teams that are centrally located or better funded than their competition will have the ability to score more points over the course of the season, as would the individuals with a lighter workload that are able to travel more frequently without falling behind on schoolwork, but it would be unfair to implement a scoring system designed to hold those particular teams and individuals back.
Minimal impact: By the end of any season, few teams and even fewer riders end up being able to attend every single weekend, and as a result, most individual and team omniums will not vary drastically if all race results are
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring counted instead of dropping some race results from the totals. Similarly, while dropped race results reduce the impact of a rider having an off weekend or performing poorly due to illness or mechanical issues, in general, every rider and each team typically has one such bad weekend or bad race every season, and it should balance out equally for all at the end of the day.
Remote race attendance: Typically, races in the farthest corner of a conference see weak attendance because of the time and money required to travel to those races. If a team has one free weekend where points don’t count, the obvious choice for a race to skip would be the one farthest away. This damages both conference camaraderie and the sustainability of those teams in remote locations (less money, less motivation to travel, etc).
Clarity: By removing a level of calculations, it’s easier for all involved to see who is truly ahead in the omnium earlier on. By dropping a team and/or rider’s lowest score(s) at the end of the season, it’s vastly more difficult to know ahead of time what the actual standings are. As stated above, the Collegiate Cycling scoring system is complicated enough that any opportunity to simplify it should be worth thoughtful consideration.
Drawbacks:
Varied travel distances: Given the enormous size of most Collegiate Cycling conferences, many teams are required to travel much farther every weekend than others just to get to the same races. Not dropping race results from an individual or team’s total places an unfair burden on those teams that are naturally at a geographic disadvantage at a disadvantage in the points, as well.
Imbalanced budgets: The variation between competing teams’ budgets is often drastic, and leaves many, if not most, teams paying out of pocket to attend races, while others are fully funded and can afford to attend more races with greater ease. Dropping race results would help level the playing field between these two ends of the financial spectrum.
Student athletes: Collegiate cyclists are students first, and athletes second, and it is in the best interest of the riders’ academic careers not to force them to attend every single race of the season.
Variance #4: Conference Championship Points
Background: About half the conferences give double or more points at conference championships, while the other half give out regular points as if it were any other race. The current proposed standard would weight all conference championships with double points, although this would be a relatively easy point to vary between conferences at the discretion of the conference director.
Advantages:
Importance of the event: Conference Championships are the ultimate event in the season, and they should be treated as such, both in the points and in attendance. This makes hosting the conference championships a truly coveted honor, and therefore helps guarantee the top-notch quality of the event.
Omnium suspense: With double points on the line, anything can happen in the team and individual rankings at the conference championships, and as a result, things stay interesting to the last minute.
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring Drawbacks:
Single weekend: To place added emphasis on a single race weekend would hurt any team or individual that couldn’t make it that weekend more than it would for a team or individual that couldn’t make it to another weekend. There are always incidental occurrences (mechanicals, schedule conflicts, illness, etc) that, were they to happen during the regular season, would have a lesser impact than if they were to come during conference championships, perhaps unfairly so.
Variance #5: Mountain Bike Omniums
Background: To recognize the widely varying skill-sets between disciplines and the naturally varying terrain (or lack thereof) between conferences, some offer separate endurance and gravity omniums, while others offer only one combined. The current proposed standard would offer both separate omniums and a combined omnium between disciplines (Since this would accommodate all conferences, there aren’t any actual drawbacks, at least that we could think of!). The proposed system could also track the same data for the road season (i.e. who has the most points from criteriums, who has the most road race points, etc.); there are a multitude of tracking capabilities that can be built into a national, web-based system with relative ease.
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring
Conference Differences:
Team Points
D1/D2
# Races that Count
Conf Champs
Gravity/Endurance
Other
Proposed Standard
Team Points
Together
All
Double
Separate and Combined
Top 4 riders from each team count for team score*
Nationals
Team Points
Separate
N/A
N/A
Combined
Top 3 riders from each team count for team score
Atlantic
Raw Sum
Riders Together, Team Separate
All
Standard
Combined
Eastern
Team Points
Together, also recognized separately
All
Double
Separate and Combined; strong attempts to equalize points by either # of events or multiplying tables
Raw Sum
Together
All
Standard
Combined
Double
Separate and Combined
InterMountain
Also tracks Sprint Leader, Ivy League
Midwest
Raw Sum
Together
Road: 50% (must include Conf Champs); MTB: 50% Endurance + 50% Gravity
North Central
Raw Sum
Together
All
Double
Combined
Northwest
Raw Sum
Together
All but 2 Starts (must include Conf Champs)
Standard
Combined
Rocky Mountain
Raw Sum
Separate
75%
Standard
Separate
Top 6 riders from each team count for team score
South Central
Raw Sum
Together
5 out of 6 Starts
Double
Combined
Year-long Omnium
Southeast
Team Points
Riders Together, Team Separate
All
Standard
Separate and Combined
Southwest
Raw Sum
Together
All
Standard
Combined
Together
Road: Top 5 Finishes from 1st ½ + Top 5 Finishes from 2nd ½ + Conference; MTB: Team: 1/3 all races or 6 races + Conference, whichever is greater Ind: 1/2 of all races or 6 races + Conference, whichever is greater
Triple Road, Double MTB
Combined
Western
Team Points
Only top 3 women count for team score in Road, otherwise top 4; Ties split in half
*All conferences already count the top four riders toward each team’s score in a given race, except where otherwise noted.
What follows is an outline of how conference omniums would be calculated, in particular highlighting a few differences from current scoring structures in the 11 conferences.
Overall Scoring Structure:
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring Variance #1: Team Points vs Raw Sum of Individual Points Background: In most conferences, a team’s score is arrived at by summing the top 4 riders’ points from each category from each race. In three conferences and at National Championships, however, teams are ranked after each race based on those raw sums, and a new set of points are assigned to each team based on those ranks. The current proposed standard would use a 20-place, 50-point Team Points scale for Team Omnium ranking.
Team Points 1
50
11
11
2
43
12
9
3
37
13
8
4
32
14
7
5
28
15
6
6
24
16
5
7
21
17
4
8
18
18
3
9
15
19
2
10
13
20
1
Advantages:
Gender equality: Team Points ensure that men’s and women’s races are always weighted equally. For example, on any given weekend, regardless of how large the women’s fields are, there are still 50 points up for grabs for the team with the most individual points earned in the women’s Road Races, the exact same number of points that are available for the team with most individual points earned in the men’s Road Races on that same weekend. This makes it very difficult for a single-gender team to defeat a mixed-gender team over the course of the weekend and the season. When was the last time you saw a single-gender team at the top of the podium at Nationals? Not only is it the fairest approach in the first place, but it also encourages the recruitment of women to the sport. This is by far the most important reason to implement Team Points, and also where it would most likely have the most significant impact.
Close competition: Team Points ensure that a single team can’t easily earn or keep an undefeatable margin of victory in the Team Omnium. For example, regardless of a winning team’s margin of victory in the Individual Points sum, their margin is inherently limited to a predetermined number of points using Team Points, keeping them within reach of the competition. This keeps competition close, and forces teams to come back weekend after weekend by preventing them from taking an 8000 point lead and then blowing off the rest of the season. In the end, provided they maintain their performance through the season, that team would still be in the lead, but by a smaller margin.
Drawbacks:
Transparency: By adding another layer of points that wipe out each individual rider’s Individual Points, what little bit of clarity that previously existed in the Collegiate Cycling scoring process goes out the window. Although it is difficult with a Raw Sum scoring process, it is downright impossible with a Team Points scale to
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring know instinctively who has won the Team Omnium until calculations are processed. This transfers the moment of suspense from the race itself to the guy with the computer, which, admittedly, isn’t as much fun.
Variance #2: D1 & D2 Together
Background: Some conferences score and rank the divisions separately within each race and over the course of the season; some just for teams, and other for both individuals and teams. Other conferences, however, score and rank their riders and teams exactly as they race: together. The current proposed standard would score and rank teams together, but would allow for teams to be ranked separately by division if desired (necessary for nationals qualifications, as well).
Advantages:
Race dynamics: By scoring a single race separately based on division, one race quickly becomes two, allowing for unfair tactics and alliances between teams of different divisions, which should be avoided if at all possible.
Clarity: As mentioned above, the Collegiate Cycling points scoring process is complicated enough, without rd
adding additional levels of complexity for the riders where they aren’t necessary. If a rider finishes 3 in a race, s/he doesn’t need to be thinking about the division of the riders ahead and behind him.
Drawbacks:
Extended Individual Points: Although it doesn’t appear to be an actual issue in any conferences with one division that is more dominant than the other, it is possible that an extended individual points table might be warranted to allow for the less dominant division to still earn points and be ranked against one another. We’ve witnessed this issue at USA Cycling Collegiate Track National Championships, where points used to go 20 places deep and now go 30 deep so that Division II schools could still be ranked more effectively against one another.
Variance #3: Dropped Races
Background: This is the most contentious variation between conferences. Do all races count toward an individual and team’s overall score, or does a certain number get dropped, to account for long driving times and the fact that students will inevitably need to miss races now and then due to schoolwork? The current proposed standard would count all race results toward both the team and individual omniums.
Advantages:
Fairness: For those individuals and teams that are able to attend more races than their competition, it’s only fair that their efforts and investments are rewarded correlatively. This will mean that the teams that are centrally located or better funded than their competition will have the ability to score more points over the course of the season, as would the individuals with a lighter workload that are able to travel more frequently without falling behind on schoolwork, but it would be unfair to implement a scoring system designed to hold those particular teams and individuals back.
Minimal impact: By the end of any season, few teams and even fewer riders end up being able to attend every single weekend, and as a result, most individual and team omniums will not vary drastically if all race results are
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring counted instead of dropping some race results from the totals. Similarly, while dropped race results reduce the impact of a rider having an off weekend or performing poorly due to illness or mechanical issues, in general, every rider and each team typically has one such bad weekend or bad race every season, and it should balance out equally for all at the end of the day.
Remote race attendance: Typically, races in the farthest corner of a conference see weak attendance because of the time and money required to travel to those races. If a team has one free weekend where points don’t count, the obvious choice for a race to skip would be the one farthest away. This damages both conference camaraderie and the sustainability of those teams in remote locations (less money, less motivation to travel, etc).
Clarity: By removing a level of calculations, it’s easier for all involved to see who is truly ahead in the omnium earlier on. By dropping a team and/or rider’s lowest score(s) at the end of the season, it’s vastly more difficult to know ahead of time what the actual standings are. As stated above, the Collegiate Cycling scoring system is complicated enough that any opportunity to simplify it should be worth thoughtful consideration.
Drawbacks:
Varied travel distances: Given the enormous size of most Collegiate Cycling conferences, many teams are required to travel much farther every weekend than others just to get to the same races. Not dropping race results from an individual or team’s total places an unfair burden on those teams that are naturally at a geographic disadvantage at a disadvantage in the points, as well.
Imbalanced budgets: The variation between competing teams’ budgets is often drastic, and leaves many, if not most, teams paying out of pocket to attend races, while others are fully funded and can afford to attend more races with greater ease. Dropping race results would help level the playing field between these two ends of the financial spectrum.
Student athletes: Collegiate cyclists are students first, and athletes second, and it is in the best interest of the riders’ academic careers not to force them to attend every single race of the season.
Variance #4: Conference Championship Points
Background: About half the conferences give double or more points at conference championships, while the other half give out regular points as if it were any other race. The current proposed standard would weight all conference championships with double points, although this would be a relatively easy point to vary between conferences at the discretion of the conference director.
Advantages:
Importance of the event: Conference Championships are the ultimate event in the season, and they should be treated as such, both in the points and in attendance. This makes hosting the conference championships a truly coveted honor, and therefore helps guarantee the top-notch quality of the event.
Omnium suspense: With double points on the line, anything can happen in the team and individual rankings at the conference championships, and as a result, things stay interesting to the last minute.
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring Drawbacks:
Single weekend: To place added emphasis on a single race weekend would hurt any team or individual that couldn’t make it that weekend more than it would for a team or individual that couldn’t make it to another weekend. There are always incidental occurrences (mechanicals, schedule conflicts, illness, etc) that, were they to happen during the regular season, would have a lesser impact than if they were to come during conference championships, perhaps unfairly so.
Variance #5: Mountain Bike Omniums
Background: To recognize the widely varying skill-sets between disciplines and the naturally varying terrain (or lack thereof) between conferences, some offer separate endurance and gravity omniums, while others offer only one combined. The current proposed standard would offer both separate omniums and a combined omnium between disciplines (Since this would accommodate all conferences, there aren’t any actual drawbacks, at least that we could think of!). The proposed system could also track the same data for the road season (i.e. who has the most points from criteriums, who has the most road race points, etc.); there are a multitude of tracking capabilities that can be built into a national, web-based system with relative ease.
USA Cycling Collegiate - Uniform Conference Scoring
Conference Differences:
Team Points
D1/D2
# Races that Count
Conf Champs
Gravity/Endurance
Other
Proposed Standard
Team Points
Together
All
Double
Separate and Combined
Top 4 riders from each team count for team score*
Nationals
Team Points
Separate
N/A
N/A
Combined
Top 3 riders from each team count for team score
Atlantic
Raw Sum
Riders Together, Team Separate
All
Standard
Combined
Eastern
Team Points
Together, also recognized separately
All
Double
Separate and Combined; strong attempts to equalize points by either # of events or multiplying tables
Raw Sum
Together
All
Standard
Combined
Double
Separate and Combined
InterMountain
Also tracks Sprint Leader, Ivy League
Midwest
Raw Sum
Together
Road: 50% (must include Conf Champs); MTB: 50% Endurance + 50% Gravity
North Central
Raw Sum
Together
All
Double
Combined
Northwest
Raw Sum
Together
All but 2 Starts (must include Conf Champs)
Standard
Combined
Rocky Mountain
Raw Sum
Separate
75%
Standard
Separate
Top 6 riders from each team count for team score
South Central
Raw Sum
Together
5 out of 6 Starts
Double
Combined
Year-long Omnium
Southeast
Team Points
Riders Together, Team Separate
All
Standard
Separate and Combined
Southwest
Raw Sum
Together
All
Standard
Combined
Together
Road: Top 5 Finishes from 1st ½ + Top 5 Finishes from 2nd ½ + Conference; MTB: Team: 1/3 all races or 6 races + Conference, whichever is greater Ind: 1/2 of all races or 6 races + Conference, whichever is greater
Triple Road, Double MTB
Combined
Western
Team Points
Only top 3 women count for team score in Road, otherwise top 4; Ties split in half
*All conferences already count the top four riders toward each team’s score in a given race, except where otherwise noted.
