2 races for BIG teams

[Robyklebt]

What would this forum be without this classic topic, always fun, not that I expect it to happen in the next 5 years, but Roby is patient.

Big teams, huge teams.. 18 riders plus. they have no flexibility, their tax rate too high, smaller teams for example can sell a young climber that doesn't train well at 23/24 and get enough money to buy a new young climber. The big team with 70% tax.. hahahaha... never. And with 18 riders you are at 70% usually. Buy a climber for 3 Mio, sell him for 4 Mio you get.... 45% (youth rule) so 1,8 Mio. The average team with 13-14 riders probably around 50% tax gets 65%, 2,6 Mio, only 400k to the new rider... the even smaller team with 11-12 riders and 40 or so tax gets 75%, 3Mio, enough to buy the replacement. Sell a rider after 25... even worse since for a 4 Mio man you'll only get 1,2 Mio... A big disadvantage, if you want to stay a big team, you have to keep what you bought basically. Plus every rider rides less, in a 12 rider team in a month with 30 races 9 riders per race there are 270 places for 12 riders, 22,5 races per month if they split them, in the 18 man team it's 15. The riders have more problems to "amortize" themselves. It's obvious that it's MUCH more difficult to keep a 18 riders team than to keep a 11-12-13 man team with a low tax rate or to build a 18 riders team (which in fact is very easy, keeping it on the other hand is not) So what advantages do the big teams have?

-They can change the team every day and don't need to look at the regeneration. Well..... right now I have a 13 riders team, had a big team before and.. irrelevant. I actually have a special 13 riders team, with 2 very expensive climbers that almost never race, for at least 20 days a month I have in fact a 11 man team, and I still have no reg problems. The reg argument is mostly bullshit.
- Can have more leaders. True, see my 2 climbers that don't ride much. Could buy a Pavéleader, a 70-80 80TT Leader, a better sprinter, 2 more support riders and be competitive on all terrains. Correct. That is an advantage. But actually the 13 man team can come close to that too... no Buonarroti, no Eiterolloid for Roby, a 95 sprinter for Karl, a 70-80 80 TT for Ivan. and I'm almost as competitive as the 18 man team with 13. Plus unlike the 18 rides team I don't need to pay that much attention to the cost per race, since I have only 13 riders and a lower tax rate with regular changes in the team it's unlikely I'll run into big problems.

Another disadvantage of course is.... you ride a GT or a smaller stage race. 9 riders ride, 9 do nothing. If you have 20 riders, 11 do nothing. A waste.


Plus now it seems we are thinking about changing the standard from 9 for every race to 8. Another disadvantage for the big teams. Then in a smaller race like Tirreno or PN they have 10-12 riders just doing nothing.

Give the BIG teams another advantage. The reason that there are so few is not that it's difficult to get, difficult to keep yes, one of the reasons, but the main reason is: It's just clearly and VERY clearly a much worse team strategy than the old Ticos/Mangahn strategy, smaller team, high turnover, keep the tax down, be flexible. Nothing wrong with that strategy, it's a good one. But why not finally give an advantage to the lovers of big teams? Give them the possibility to ride 2 races if 2 important races are at the same time. Catalunya and E3/Gent, Vuelta and all the italian fall classics etc. etc. The Ticos/MM method will still be the better one, but at least the big teams have a real advantage from their big team. Especially if we go down to 8 riders as a standard.

Oh, and I say BIG teams. Not 2 races for teams... If there are 2 races with 6 riders parallel, no, teams with 12 riders can't ride both. It's for BIG teams, teams with 18 riders or more can do that. If we go down to 8, ok, maybe could live with 16. But not less, even if only 14 riders are needed.

[Cerro Torre RT]

i agree in everything but the last point. I am totally against those restrictive things, that only create new rules withpout effects. If there ever would be 2 races for 6 riders, any team with 12 guys will run into giant costs if all start as with 6 riders, it's much harder to compensate for the costs of expensive ones. This one time it will happen in 5 years, nobody will try to build a 12-man-team to afford to start both. If it should be allowed, and in my eyes it should, then do it the easy way. You are allowed to start a second race if you have enough riders left.

[Buhmann]

[team fl]

Mr. Klebt, the best arguments against your proposition - and of course against your propaganda that big teams are the real losers of RSF - is:

- everybody is free to have a 13 rider- instead of an 18 rider-team, or even a mercenary team like mangahn or former ticos. If you don't like that, that's your choise
- if they are no advantages for big teams: why do they exist after all? (even very succesfull managers have them...)
- most succesfull teams buy their riders out of their premiums income anyway
- everytime a sytems tries to implement an incentive for a certain way to play, there will be trade-offs. as long as you can't define the outcome of this (i'm sure there will be at least one most teams do not want to have), only writing about advantages for big teams won't do the propaganda

[NoPikouze]

Roby likes writing a lot

I think it would be nice to allow teams to join courses as long as they have enough riders for it. So if you do a race and have enough riders for another race that day, you could do both...

A thought i have now: In this cas, maybe teams should be allowed to participate with 1 rider under the requirement ? Makes a weaker team, but there is also the (unfair) advantage of reducing costs...

[Robyklebt]

Mr. Klebt, the best arguments against your proposition - and of course against your propaganda that big teams are the real losers of RSF - is:

Ok, let's see:

- everybody is free to have a 13 rider- instead of an 18 rider-team, or even a mercenary team like mangahn or former ticos. If you don't like that, that's your choise

Ok..... what's the argument exactly here? The choice will always be there. It's about giving one advantage to the 18 riders teams, the smaller teams have more advantages now. In my view they will still have advantages when this proposition is accepted by Buhmann in 2053. You don't like having a 18 riders team nobody forces you to get one either.

- if they are no advantages for big teams: why do they exist after all? (even very succesfull managers have them...)

Ehm, since I didn't say there are no advantages this one here ceases to be an argument already at the first word... "if" New record! Read again! But ok, let's say you change that to "If there are fewer advantages for big teams, ...." The second part connected with the first "argument" Why do they exist? Different reasons I guess. In my case when I had a big team it was because I just like having my riders for a long time. Get attached to them, selling them? To see them on the TM for ages? No thanks. If possible I keep them until 34, just remember 2 cases where I sold somebody earlier since June 08, Ruiz, days before the Vuelta, for the 1% chance that he can ride it and Roland Guggisberg after SPIH since due to RL things I had no money and couldn't start anymore otherwise. Otherwise no, I like my riders, wouldn't mind selling them if I have a guarantee that they get teams, if possible fairly good ones, but don't have that, so I keep them. Others? Don't know, ask them, but can't imagine somebody getting and keeping a big team because he/she thinks it's better than a small team. Ok, can imagine somebody who is fairly new thinking it's an advantage, early success, more money, rides a lot, then you can very easily get a 18 riders team fast. Without really thinking about it. But can't imagine somebody with experience thinking it's the better way to manage a team. For fun, for the pleasure of having more riders, yes. But from a purely managing/sport perspective? No. If you want to win regularly and not have longer not so successful periods, a small team is the much better option.

- most succesfull teams buy their riders out of their premiums income anyway

This one is just plain wrong

A earns 1,5 Mio, sells a 1,5 Mio rider, 50% tax, gets 750k, 2,25 Mio, he finances his new rider 66,6% with premiums.
B earns 1,5 Mio, sells a 1,5 Mio rider, 70% tax, gets 450 k, 1,95 Mio, he finances his new rider 76,9% with premiums.

The only teams that finance their new riders only with premiums are the small growing teams fairly young, people who restarted, made a new beginning like Gaurain, ZL etc. Short term of course, long term everybody uses money from the selling of riders. But in percentage the small teams use will be bigger than the one the big teams will use. Bigger team=higher tax=more dependent on premiums. Nothing wrong with it either, but it's still like that.
Then of course theres the extreme Ticosmodel, where premiums are almost not used to finance new riders, high turnover, keep the tax down, expensive teams, minimal profit, keep the tax down, would be surprised if Ticos used more than 30% of profits for his new riders. (not now, before)

- everytime a sytems tries to implement an incentive for a certain way to play, there will be trade-offs. as long as you can't define the outcome of this (i'm sure there will be at least one most teams do not want to have), only writing about advantages for big teams won't do the propaganda

That's the first one that actually makes sense. But of course you could just post your concern.... would be easier. What would happen in my opinion? 18+ teams would be a bit more common. Getting there is easy, staying there not really, Roby for example can't do it. Others yes. But with the incentive of riding E3-Gent AND Catalunya next year... I would try to time it so that I have 18+ riders in March 11. But this incentive wouldn't make 18+ riders the better managing option. I still clearly see the smaller more flexible team us the better system, all it would do is give the big teams an advantage in another area. More fun, being able to ride 2 races at times. And with that probably a point advantage. But if you noticed that little part here

Give them the possibility to ride 2 races if 2 important races are at the same time.

you will be aware that the point advantage wouldn't be that great since that doesn't happen all that often. Plus what is wrong with a big team profiting from its size? Nothing really, why shouldn't Skullz or whoever else has a huge team now get points for a E3-Gent win PLUS points from Catalunya? If he's good enough to get a team that can be competitive at both races simultaneously why shouldn't he get those points? And even if he wins all Catalunya stages, the CG and the 2 classics. If he's that good.. .deserved. But ok, what is the one big thing you are concerned about?

Anyway, if those are the best arguments Buhmann will probably introduce this no later than 2018, since there seem to be no really good arguments against it

No pikouze:

Roby likes writing a lot

First time somebody said that to me Buhmann usually complains that my posts are to short and not detailed enough

[captain ahab]

i haven't read anything yet...but i am against it!

...just kidding

[olmania]

Really interesting blablabla

So, Just one detail. For the possibility to ride 2races if you have a really big team, I disagree. Just because stay 2h/day on my computer for RSF is enough. No way for 2races of 2hours, too much ! I think if we will have the possibility to ride 2races, some big teams can't. So, that's not good for equality.

[gaurain rx]

Completly agree with Roby... Completly!!! 2 races possible for big teams when it's important one's... And as he already say, it won't be more than 2 or 3 races per month!!! Anyway, I don't see what is the problem about this idea! There's a good logic behind this!!! And it could give a good option for the managers who hesitate to ride E3/Harelbeke or Catalunya... Or things like that anyway!

[el Galactico]

The idea is good, but we really have to be attentive that these races are only for a few important races so that it won't become a normal thing to drive 2 races per day. Standard should stay on 1 race per day so that everybody is able to play this game by spending 2 hours of their freetime. 2 hours is ok, but 2 races as standard will simply blow up the expenditure of time for most of us...
There is really a real life beside RSF!!

[Cerro Torre RT]

Or, just another way to think: RSF is a part of real life of some real people.

[olmania]

Or, just another way to think: RSF is a part of real life of some real people.

A part of real life
some real people

You can't make a new rule for only a part of the players, in this case maybe less than 50 (maybe less and less^^)

[Luna]

Who cares about equality among the teams? Getting as much ranking points as possible is not the aim of the game, as I understand it. It's just about trying to win the races I ride. I don't give a damn about what Div I ride or how many races the other teams can do per day, if I only get entry to the important races. I would have no problem if the whole Div 1 would consist solely of teams riding 60 races per month. Then I would hold my existence in Divs 2 + 3, still doing one race per day (most of the time), beating Mr Klebt whenever I meet him, despite riding less than him.

[Cerro Torre RT]

of some people means off all playing RSF

and Luna described it very good. I can't imagine to get any mentionable amount of money out of this. Than you only have a whole cheap team without leaders. I think i would use it if i got the luck to have enough riders at the right time, but only for important ones, not very often. Other teams using it more often, they don't bother me.

[auxilium torino]

Since one month duration variable, because 'we do instead that in a month you can run 40 races per team, independent of what these 40.
OK, a restriction is that you can not 'run 2 times the same race, but' I think it is fair to give the opportunity 'to all teams to compete more' races on the same day, so it would not be fair to limit these races because not everyone has the chance 'at the same time.

We take the RL as an example each team can 'run more race same day.
Let's do it well we maintain a balance, we put a cap of 40 calls per month. So, if I can not run today (Work, school, girl, etc..) Tomorrow I can run 2 or 3.
The problem of choice remains to me.
I think the most 'correct for everyone.

Written in Italian and translated traductor.

[auxilium torino]

I come back on this Topic!
Tour de Romandie ...
Stage 1 4 Km 4 minutes
Stage 4 23 km 23 minutes
All stage togheter: 6 stage 419 minutes (approximative 75 minutes/day)

I think that especially on days like these it is possible for many to make a second race.
In fact, I think the most I want a second race, the first since there is virtually

[Quick]

Yep. Rund um den Henninger Turm could maybe be ridden parallel to Romandie - not more... thought we don't want 2 races/day in generell...only if there are 2 important races.

[auxilium torino]

I think it is not important, what race you can run. Also 180 km. plain. Today, however, 4 minutes, ...
where and 'my daily dose of RSF