Still to many questions in your posts. Rhetorical ones mostly, Stick to statements and real questions.
Already the first questions makes no sense.
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
And you think the first combination is better, fairer?
How exactly did you come up with that question?
Because now you have to show me
where I said or implied the first combination is fairer, better.
Of course I know you can't, so I'm definitely not holding my breath, and will still answer the question that makes no sense without expecting you to provide me with a quote. But not before giving you an example of a question that would have made sense: "Do you think the first one is fairer, better?". Or even better: "Which one do you think is fairer, better". Not the "And you think"which implies that this is what I've said or implied at some point. And you thought you were clever with these questions? Or was it rhetorical? Or was it an introduction to some great point? Or or or... see the point? Those oh so clever pointless question.. yes.. ah no, you didn't get it? Or did you?
And before the answer, let's analyze the second question:
Really? That's your second question? You thought the first one wasn't good enough?
The answer:
If I have to chose between those too... the first answer is I hadn't thought about it. I thought about if 2.2+ for the Vuelta is better, (fairer?) than 1.6, and pretty clearly said that 1.6 already was much better, even if it still seemed higher than I had expected.
And said that I thought 0 was much better than +1.9 millions (since then upgraded to 2.3)
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
I would really like to understand how you arrive at that conclusion.
What conclusion? The one you put in my mouth without me having said it? Really? I really would like to understand how you arrive at that conclusion. Oh, we had that already... back to the program.
If you force me to chose between too way too much for my Vuelta and way too much for my Giro... the answer is way to much for my Vuelta. So you were right. Even if you have no clue why.
The reason is simple:
Parallel program 1 day races in May 2020 in the afternoon: 13-16h 5 5 11 11 7 9 10 8 10 7 8 10 3 5 1 6 9 7 6 8 5 7. With a parallel stage race with 10 teams. (no guarantee the list above is complete) With step 1 and step 2 implemented, despite the 2 races with 10% more income, the earnings for the parallel boys would be lower than they were now. A bit.
I get to ride the Giro, I get to chase glory, even if I ultimately fail (where you got "particularly successful" from is another mystery, but don't bother). AND I get to earn 1.9 millions? (2.3 now, but question was about 1.9, 2.3 of course makes it worse).
You lose 1.1 million (no info on how much it would have been with step 2 base 10) but get ciclamino, you get glory.
The side program, one day races gets no glory, rightly so. But then with the harder step 1 (which
principle I support, no need to keep up a whole series of more rhetorical questions, it doesn't make you sound philosophical either, I assure you) they earn less than they would now, while you presumably don't lose 1.1 millions anymore.
So riding the Giro, potential glory AND most likely more money (I would expect to earn around 1 million in the 1 day race side program, other teams might have higher expectations, but that's more or less what I usually do, 50k per race downgrade to 45k with step 1, fuck it, just make it a million in 23 days and 1.1 without step 1)
So 0 vs 1.1 million Giro vs side program or 1.9 million vs 1 million, Giro vs sideprogram?
2.2. Vuelta? 8 7 9 9 7 8 8 7 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 7 8 8 9 8 9 8. Bigger groups parallel on average. The system now, so higher earnings than with step 1 introduced. Since this is under the current system, the earnings for the parallel one day racers (and not all of them chose not to ride the GT, some simply can't) should be a bit higher than with step 1 introduction. 1.1 I said, but more high cat, 1.4 millions! (number out of my ass, yes) and some glory in Canada? 2.2. vs 1.4 is not especially good, 1.4 and 1.2 (ass number again) by itself would be better.
But In total:
So:
0 Giro and 2.2. Vuelta twice potential glory vs 2.4 millions parallel program with more limited glory?
1.9 Giro and 1.4 Vuelta vs 2.2 millions parallel program?
The first please.
Or said in another way:
Slightly lower earnings but more potential glory more interesting race vs decisively higher earnings and more potential glory and interesting race?
Trade earnings for glory, fully ok. Or fail at it while trying. Better solution that giving all to the GT riders.
But the question still is nonsense since I've made it pretty damn clear that the Vuelta earnings lower would be preferable.
Lots of text without great new insights now? (Although there is the insight that the game doesn't only consist of GTs, and that fairness, even financial one, can't be only looked at by comparing 2 editions of the same race) I think so too. So maybe try to ask more sensible questions next time.
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
So. I think almost everyone here agrees there is too much and not too little money in the game currently. That's why I say the base does not need to be 10 Teams.
After a number of people pointed that out. Your first mention of this in this thread was:
This is the solution
This thread shows how to implement the solution:
And all you talked about in the other thread was base 10...
But good, opposition to that money flood made you reconsider the base 10 nonsense. Progress, we're slowly getting there. You finally start to understand.
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
So maybe all you criticize is that in the second combination there is more money in total? And more money = Bad? Then: Be my guest. I agree!
You might agree in words, but your proposals seldom show that, base 10, the infamous proposal to change the tax system to 70% tax at 50 millions. Make sure your proposals are actually effective, and not counter productive, as both step 2 base 10 and the tax thing would be. I agree with your goals, your ideas how to reach them unfortunately are generally misquided.
base 12 now?
I calculated base 15 a while ago, seemed to be somewhat ok for GTs, making it tighter, much tighter, (minimal minus for my vuelta 23 200k plus for Giro 20, if I remember correctly, no idea if that would be fair for you then) the problem was that I didn't like it for 1 day races.
108'000 for a cat 1 race, with 5 teams that's 54k for a win. With step 1. With base 15 it's 36k Base 12 45k And yes, lots of placements. But in an 8 rider race 335'000 salary covered, you actually are above the limit pretty fast. If it's a hilly race, very fast. If you have a top classic, ok, bring him and 7 sausages, that's what I do and stay under 335000. And still get a decent placement. If you have just some 68-75? Hm, let's see, who has those riders? Do you know who has them? Can you guess who has them? Have you thought about who has them? Do I need to ask more questions? Am I really clever now with all these questions? Wait, could it be newcomers? Yes, newcomers! Really? Newcomers? YES, newcomers! End up in a cat 1 5 team race, are over the limit (if I remember correctly you opposed obligatory 10 riders for 17 millions too), even if they are only 10 k over the limit, normally they won't win the race, will end up with minimal profit, if any. Second place with just step 1 31500, base 12 26'250, base 15 21. For me for newcomers that's simply too low. Maybe even step 1, but that should still be ok, especially since we hope to have fewer and fewer of these low participation 1 day races (not too many stage races parallel helps) Oh, I think I find an appropriate quote from your post for that too!
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
Not everyone likes to switch races just because of group size. Some are Masters in that, but most people dont like to do that. Some might be riding their first Grand Tour and get destroyed financially because they didn't expect this financial result. So I prefer if it was a fairer distribution to begin with.
And some might not be riding the GC but the parallel program, and get destroyed financially because they didn't realize their freedom to buy few riders for lots of money meant they wouldn't earn any in 23 days in small groups. They won't even reach the GTs!
Reduce income in races with less than 10 teams, leave the rest as it is. Step 1 as proposed? Let Hansa have his say, haven't really figured out exactly what he tries to say so far, for me right now step 1 by itself doesn't really seem to present big problems (unless we create them with some rope pulling in the other direction with money for newcomers)
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:52 pm
Then, I would like to add Hansa's idea. If there are more (less) teams, then more (less) placements get something out of the prize money pool. It's like when you meet your friends for a round of poker and everyone pays in 10 EUR. If it's just 3 of you, you might decide "The winner takes it all." But if it's 5 of you, you might give something to the 2nd place. If it's 10 of you, the 3rd place should probably also get something. Etc. Etc. Same concept here depending on whether there are 50, 100 or 150 riders in a race would be nice. Prize money pool would also adjust obviously in this metaphor. With 3 friends, there are 30 Euro in total. With 5 friends 50 Euro. With 10 friends 100 Euro etc. Very normal procedure.
Patchwork finances. And unnecessary if we leave all the step 2 bases where they belong. On the drawing board. But preferably on a drawing board that is hidden in a drawer underneath lots of other discarded silly ideas.