A Gripe About the Points System

What you described literally only happened in race 3. First to motos people where hella aggressive

Acidreamer wrote:

What you described literally only happened in race 3. First to motos people where hella aggressive

Dude, it can only happen in Race 3. What kinda comment was that?

Brownstone322 wrote:

When I first heard how they'd score the "Triple Crown" events I thought it was OK. Turns out there's a simple issue, but I didn't even think of it until I watched. This isn't a big thing, but it is a thing.

When the third race settles in, there's not necessarily any reason for a rider to attempt to move up, because it might not affect the overall. In this case, Tomac lost the lead to Anderson in Race 3, but he had zero incentive to try to retake the spot (or even defend the spot for that matter), because he had 26 points either way.

There's a reason that real motocross awards points for each moto individually, and that's it.

Yes that’s true.

You have to realize the motive for them doing this, they want more parody, they want more guys winning. This format can help that happen.

Brownstone322 wrote:

When I first heard how they'd score the "Triple Crown" events I thought it was OK. Turns out there's a simple issue, but I didn't even think of it until I watched. This isn't a big thing, but it is a thing.

When the third race settles in, there's not necessarily any reason for a rider to attempt to move up, because it might not affect the overall. In this case, Tomac lost the lead to Anderson in Race 3, but he had zero incentive to try to retake the spot (or even defend the spot for that matter), because he had 26 points either way.

There's a reason that real motocross awards points for each moto individually, and that's it.

I get what you're saying but you're looking at it from a results-oriented perspective.

As the race was happening, Tomac had no way of knowing where Seely would finish therefore was likely doing his best.

If Seely had gotten to 4th, Tomac would have ended up 2nd overall and would've indeed needed the win in moto 3.

With that said, the possibility is there to have instances come into play where a rider could let another rider by in order to affect the overall outcome and have absolutely no negative consequences for himself. It could get interesting.

SPYGUY wrote:

I get what you're saying but you're looking at it from a results-oriented perspective.

As the race was happening, Tomac had no way of knowing where Seely would finish therefore was likely doing his best.

If Seely had gotten to 4th, Tomac would have ended up 2nd overall and would've indeed needed the win in moto 3.

I've thought of that, and, while I like Tomac, I've never read him as the smartest guy in the field. On the other hand, they do talk about this stuff before the final race, and there's a pit board to keep him apprised.

I've always said the series should use two 20-ish-minute races per class, with each race scored independently -- that is, truly a scaled-down version of motocross. After last night, I'm stickin' to it.

Brownstone322 wrote:

When I first heard how they'd score the "Triple Crown" events I thought it was OK. Turns out there's a simple issue, but I didn't even think of it until I watched. This isn't a big thing, but it is a thing.

When the third race settles in, there's not necessarily any reason for a rider to attempt to move up, because it might not affect the overall. In this case, Tomac lost the lead to Anderson in Race 3, but he had zero incentive to try to retake the spot (or even defend the spot for that matter), because he had 26 points either way.

There's a reason that real motocross awards points for each moto individually, and that's it.

SPYGUY wrote:

I get what you're saying but you're looking at it from a results-oriented perspective.

As the race was happening, Tomac had no way of knowing where Seely would finish therefore was likely doing his best.

If Seely had gotten to 4th, Tomac would have ended up 2nd overall and would've indeed needed the win in moto 3.

Brownstone322 wrote:

I've thought of that, and, while I like Tomac, I've never read him as the smartest guy in the field. On the other hand, they do talk about this stuff before the final race, and there's a pit board to keep him apprised.

I've always said the series should use two 20-ish-minute races per class, with each race scored independently -- that is, truly a scaled-down version of motocross. After last night, I'm stickin' to it.

I had a feeling he woulda been happy with second place, because he seemed genuinely surprised he won.

kkawboy14 wrote:

I had a feeling he woulda been happy with second place, because he seemed genuinely surprised he won.

I toldya already ... not the smartest guy at the gate.

Brownstone322 wrote:

I've thought of that, and, while I like Tomac, I've never read him as the smartest guy in the field. On the other hand, they do talk about this stuff before the final race, and there's a pit board to keep him apprised.

I've always said the series should use two 20-ish-minute races per class, with each race scored independently -- that is, truly a scaled-down version of motocross. After last night, I'm stickin' to it.

kkawboy14 wrote:

I had a feeling he woulda been happy with second place, because he seemed genuinely surprised he won.

Brownstone322 wrote:

I toldya already ... not the smartest guy at the gate.

Ha

More importantly the 1st and 2nd “Main” results affected gate pick.

Brownstone322 wrote:

I've thought of that, and, while I like Tomac, I've never read him as the smartest guy in the field. On the other hand, they do talk about this stuff before the final race, and there's a pit board to keep him apprised.

I've always said the series should use two 20-ish-minute races per class, with each race scored independently -- that is, truly a scaled-down version of motocross. After last night, I'm stickin' to it.

kkawboy14 wrote:

I had a feeling he woulda been happy with second place, because he seemed genuinely surprised he won.

Brownstone322 wrote:

I toldya already ... not the smartest guy at the gate.

Yeah wtf?

ET should've known where all the riders were, especially Seely, and been able to do the math in his head, all while riding at warp speed on a technical sx track.

Yeah he's not smart, deciding last week not to risk it and get better for this week. Then come out and put in a great ride for the win.

I'm actually questioning your intelligence.

SPYGUY wrote:

With that said, the possibility is there to have instances come into play where a rider could let another rider by in order to affect the overall outcome and have absolutely no negative consequences for himself. It could get interesting.

I’m surprised no one else commented on this because it’s a huge point. Someone like Tomac could let someone like Seely stay in front of him in order to knock the points leader back in the overall. And like you said, there’s absolutely no negative consequences for Tomac.

SPYGUY wrote:

With that said, the possibility is there to have instances come into play where a rider could let another rider by in order to affect the overall outcome and have absolutely no negative consequences for himself. It could get interesting.

if Savagy had let AC by, AC would have got 2nd not 4th, i was surprised it did not happen,

Indy mxer wrote:

Yeah wtf?

ET should've known where all the riders were, especially Seely, and been able to do the math in his head, all while riding at warp speed on a technical sx track.

Yeah he's not smart, deciding last week not to risk it and get better for this week. Then come out and put in a great ride for the win.

I'm actually questioning your intelligence.

Brilliant analysis, Einstein.

And Dungey passed Musquin on his own last year in Jersey too. Because, ya know, Musquin had no idea where anyone else was on the track and (magically) had no one in the pits to give him any guidance. He was just too busy.

It is a flaw, and I think counting each MOTO as a points paying race is better. I'm all in for the shorter races, and might even recommend the 1st be shorter and the 3rd be longer to make up for the time.

Johnny Depp wrote:

It is a flaw, and I think counting each MOTO as a points paying race is better. I'm all in for the shorter races, and might even recommend the 1st be shorter and the 3rd be longer to make up for the time.

Agreed on points per race. Problem solved. I think the FIM changed from awarding points for overalls to points to per moto in 1973.

Trying to figure out what the difference between last night's strategy , and what they would do in a 2 moto format like the outdoors?

I don't think these guys think to much when they are out there. Goal is to either pass the guy in front of you or hold your position. And why you try like hell , try to not get passed.....they aren't thinking about what position their competitors are in. Why worry about something you can't control?

You can sit there and point out ( what you think ) are negatives , but the positives out weigh it. It's not just a race....and who beats who race. There is some urgency and some tactics , but in the end......the fastest / most consistent guy will win. Except they don't do it just once......it takes three motos.

jeffro503 wrote:

Trying to figure out what the difference between last night's strategy , and what they would do in a 2 moto format like the outdoors?

I don't think these guys think to much when they are out there. Goal is to either pass the guy in front of you or hold your position. And why you try like hell , try to not get passed.....they aren't thinking about what position their competitors are in. Why worry about something you can't control?

You can sit there and point out ( what you think ) are negatives , but the positives out weigh it. It's not just a race....and who beats who race. There is some urgency and some tactics , but in the end......the fastest / most consistent guy will win. Except they don't do it just once......it takes three motos.

The difference in a 2 moto format like the outdoors is every single position of every moto is worth points. That's not the case in the triple crown. On the 3rd race of the triple crown the leader would potentially have some flexibility to let others go by. Tomac is probably more worried about Anderson than Seely. So, Tomac stays behind Seely, which he hopes allows Seely to OA higher than Anderson, which in turn costs Anderson 2 points and all the while Tomac is still collecting all 26 points for win. There hasn't previously been a scenario where a rider could let another rider by and not lose any points for it.

I'm not saying it's a negative or positive. It's just a byproduct of the triple crown points format. It's a new twist that hasn't existed before.

I didn’t even think of that, but you’re 100% right. There will be times when we will be robbed of a great race for the lead simply because a few of the guys don’t care about positioning in the final race, as it is worthless.

CincyTriGuy wrote:

The difference in a 2 moto format like the outdoors is every single position of every moto is worth points. That's not the case in the triple crown. On the 3rd race of the triple crown the leader would potentially have some flexibility to let others go by. Tomac is probably more worried about Anderson than Seely. So, Tomac stays behind Seely, which he hopes allows Seely to OA higher than Anderson, which in turn costs Anderson 2 points and all the while Tomac is still collecting all 26 points for win. There hasn't previously been a scenario where a rider could let another rider by and not lose any points for it.

I'm not saying it's a negative or positive. It's just a byproduct of the triple crown points format. It's a new twist that hasn't existed before.

Tomacs strategy for Atlanta and Minneapolis; go 1-1- then takeout Anderson and do as good as he can after that.

What about the mental game?

A moto win is a win which ever way you cut it, so letting a rider by has its price whether it be points or mental gain. You are only as fast as your last race... etc.

Brownstone322 wrote:

When I first heard how they'd score the "Triple Crown" events I thought it was OK. Turns out there's a simple issue, but I didn't even think of it until I watched. This isn't a big thing, but it is a thing.

When the third race settles in, there's not necessarily any reason for a rider to attempt to move up, because it might not affect the overall. In this case, Tomac lost the lead to Anderson in Race 3, but he had zero incentive to try to retake the spot (or even defend the spot for that matter), because he had 26 points either way.

There's a reason that real motocross awards points for each moto individually, and that's it.

kkawboy14 wrote:

Yes that’s true.

You have to realize the motive for them doing this, they want more parody, they want more guys winning. This format can help that happen.

It got it’s desired effect. The racing was better. I really enjoyed the format.

The mistake tho is in thinking parody sells. In theory we all think it makes for a more popular sport, but the data shows otherwise.

Sports fans think they like parody. The reality is that they LOVE dynasties (or love hating them).

Same goes for “upsets & underdogs”. Everyone thinks it’s great for March Madness. And Im sure some do like it. But the masses tune out when the small school reaches the Final Four.

TDeath21 wrote:

I didn’t even think of that, but you’re 100% right. There will be times when we will be robbed of a great race for the lead simply because a few of the guys don’t care about positioning in the final race, as it is worthless.

Is that worse than what we’ve had in the past?

Which has been mostly boring main events. Very little lead changes. And follow-the-leader & survive once 10 minutes in?

Calling the race Triple Crown, sort of made me think they would award event points for each moto. That would have made more sense.

The points issue that may need to be tweaked is that you get minimum points if you dnf in a single main event round, but can dnf a "moto" and build your point total in the three race format if you're able to get your bike or bod to the line for the other two.

For example, if Anderson had ruined his bike in the first race, I expect Tomac would be wondering why he could line up to use the following two races to minimize that damage when Tomac was one and done the first round (if it helps the illustration, assume it's a mechanical like a couple years ago when RV wadded his bike and so jammed the silencer it wouldn't start).

Probably not an issue that comes up a lot, but someone will benefits and someone gain so someone will complain.

TDeath21 wrote:

I didn’t even think of that, but you’re 100% right. There will be times when we will be robbed of a great race for the lead simply because a few of the guys don’t care about positioning in the final race, as it is worthless.

I didn’t originally think of it either, but it became obvious to me when Anderson passed Tomac — didn’t make any difference to Tomac. That’s why I started the thread.