July Tri Challenge Central (Page 5)

I thought the boards were mysteriously quieter than usual today.

Hah! I take myself very seriously, as you can tell!

I'll PM you my alternative email addy (I only have 8).

Update:

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=21756&posts=1#s

Renee... looks like a typo in Team Yuengling, HookedOnTri's swim goal.... s/b 8000y instead of 80,000y!

Peace Out!

Thanks. I corrected it.

Wow, thanks, Mark!  I would really have been in trouble there! 

Updated spreadsheet posted.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=21756&posts=21#M199406

I knew I wasn't crazy.

tpeterson02's scoring suggestions sound good.  Average of all workouts (capped at 100%).
So, for an 8-person team, it will be the average of 24 scores. 

By capping at 100% we remove the incentive for team members to try to make up for their mates and it removes the incentive to do "extra" training in your favorite discipline at the expense of your other pledged amounts. 

My team has two injured members.  One has declared his withdrawl and I suggest his numbers be removed from the team score.  The other team member is recovering and plans to continue.  He had to stop training for a week after the crash.  Can his pledged workouts be reduced proportionally to the number of days he was out?  This will still leave him at a slight disadvantage as he begins training again, still slightly injured.

I'm down with this.

ahem!  isn't this where we started out weeks ago???  Oh sorry...I forget that I was banished from this argument...I am out!!!.......laughing as I go though ......

Lane, Gotta get a dig in, huh? Whatever floats your boat.

It's a discussion. A10 way discussion. Everyone has been asked to give their 2 cents. Sans sarcasm would be nice but who am I to censor?

And you were never banished; you quit. I was so sorry to see you go, too!

All right, here's my take on this. I'm more in favor of using actual percentages, as suggested by Lane originally, and others (tpetersen) more recently. I think this would highly reduce the likelihood of a tie, as there is a much greater range of numbers to work with.  I know an example was given where this could still end in a tie, but the example used very round numbers (e.g., 100%, 90%, 80%), and I think when we are looking at actual percentages there will be more variability (e.g., 79.5%, 86.9%, etc). To me, there is something more inherently fair about this system as it does reward effort toward the goals, so someone with 97% gets some credit for their work against someone who only made 10% (injuries excluded).

That being said, I would not cry if it was decided to use the all or nothing, 0,1,2, or 3 points per person scoring system.  If this system is used, the final ranking of teams would need to be based on the average numbers of goals met per person per team, to balance out for teams with fewer members or injuries.

A third option (and forgive me if this is too much of the kinder, gentler, can't we all get along kind of crap) would be to figure the scoring both ways, and if there are two different "winners", then so be it. The two winning teams would name their charities, and all of the other teams can decide which to give to. Given the rancor and disagreement over the scoring, and who agreed to what, etc., this might be the best option and in the best spirit of these challenges (to have fun, push ourselves in our training, and support some good causes).  Of course, the likelihood of having two winners is small, given that a certain team will likely crush all the rest in the end (here's a hint - it's captained by some guy from Maine). 

So there's my 2 cents.

-Rob

Ok, judging by this thread and my PM box, it looks like the team average of the 3 %ages is the preferred scoring system. We'll go with that. I'm going to leave on the spreadsheet the column with # of people at goal just for the sake of the captains' easy eyeball of who is lagging (forgive the poor sentence structure). However, the score that matters will be average score (not to exceed 100% in any given sport).

Thanks to all for weighing in. Have a great weekend of training!!!

So what I hear is.....THAT LANE WAS RIGHT!!!

(I am kidding again!!!) 

Renee, you know you still love me!  I knew I had you even before the "spanking".   And I got nothin' but love for you too!

My point all along was that we just needed a resolution to the debate...not that I was right or wrong....although, I was right!!!   OK, I am leaving again...promise!  

Seems like its already been decided, but I'm weighing in anyway.  I believe that the "point" system idea came based on the June bike lots challenge.  What happened was that even though more women succeeded in meeting their goal, they still lost the challenge from an overall average percentage standpoint.  It does take an all or nothing approach...either you make your goal, or you don't...no grey areas.

I'm much more in favor of an average % of the three events WITH a cap of 100% in place when a particular sport is accomplished for each person and then the overall team average as an average of all the individual personal percentages.  The 100% cap forces the individuals to achieve their goals in all 3 sports.  I don't think the point system can account for the different levels of effort, plus doesn't allow for those who got injured or had issues throughout the month to still contribute to their team.

If at the end of the month, two or more teams have achieved a 100% team score, that's great.  Share the spotlight and the glory.  IMO that's the point.  Having a team full of people that all hit their goals indicate that they have all been consistent and thorough with their planning and workouts.

Can I get an Amen on that.

As always....TEAM YUENGLING is steps ahead of the competition.