Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

 It seems strange that a team where the rider with the lesser of the points
has a bunch but when you calculate the magic formula the rider with the larger
number is over by 4.6% and that team is DQed by the brick wall cut off. To
put that in perspective, 46 points in 1000. That may have been the intent
when the rule was passed, but I doubt it was the intent of the majority of
the board, more likely some didn't think it through to foresee this type
of situation arising. 

In any case I think it pretty much stinks and should be changed so that such
a pair as we had DQed, this year would lost points (for the calculation of
the Husband/Wife award) but not thrown off the cliff. 

So if there are any directors out there listening, you know at least how
this member wants you to vote.

Truman Prevatt
AERC 8217

Joe Long wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:10:43 -0700, "Heidi Smith"
> <heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Well, it was discussed, quite a bit, and like you, my memory is not entirely
> > comprehensive, either.  But I do recall discussion to the effect that if
> > spouse A rode 200 miles, then 400 miles of the more than that ridden by
> > spouse B would count.  Seems clear that since the award is for points, it
> > would be the 400 that earned the most points.
> >   
>
> I am quite sure this was NOT the intent.  The BoD had, shortly before
> this, wrestled with a National Championship proposal that would have
> chosen the National Champion as the horse/rider with the most points
> over X number of miles.  The BoD could not agree on whether to count
> the first X miles or the "best" X miles, nor on how to determine the
> "best" X miles.  So although a majority favored the overall concept,
> it was never adopted because no majority could be obtained for any
> specific method.
>
> With that experience, the BoD would not have adopted a vague "miles
> that earned the most points" for the Husband/Wife award.  All of the
> issues I pointed out would have had to have been addressed, decided,
> and written into the language of how the award is given.
>
> No, the BoD did not set out to, in some mean-spirited way,
> "disqualify" anyone.  But when you have an award that has some
> eligibility criteria, it is a fact that you either meet the criteria,
> or you do not.  Suppose a rider who rides far more miles than anyone
> else some year happens to be 64 years old  -- does that mean he really
> "deserves" the Bill Stucky award?  Or that the BoD improperly
> "disqualified" him from this prestigious award just because he was a
> "little short" of 65?  Of course not.  The Bill Stuckey award is for
> the rider, 65 or older, who rides the most miles -- if you're 64, you
> don't qualify.  Period. 
>
> You know, Smokey Killen (who was on the Board at that time) was
> unhappy that couples living together without benefit of matrimony
> couldn't win the award.  He proposed making it the "Man/Woman" award.
> I don't recall him ever clarifying who would be eligible for that ...
> would you have to have the same address?  Be dating?  Just take the
> man with the most points in AERC, and the woman with the most points,
> and give them the award?
>
> Oh, BTW, just to illustrate what I'm talking about with a different
> example:
>
> Husband rides four 50-mile rides, for 200 miles.
>
> Wife rides five 50-mile rides, one 100-mile ride, two 55-mile rides,
> one 60-mile ride, and one 65-mile ride, for 585 miles.
>
> There is no combination of the wife's rides that add up to exactly 400
> miles.  Which do you use?
>
> If you start with her highest-point rides, lets say that includes the
> 100, the 65, and four 50's.  That gets you to 365 miles.  Her ride
> with the next highest number of points is one of the 55's.  But if you
> count that, you have 420 total miles ... too much.
>
> So now what do you do?  Not count that one?  Now you're only counting
> 365 of her miles.  Count 35/55ths of those points?  That doesn't make
> sense either, IMO ... she didn't ride 35/55ths of a ride, and she
> wasn't in the same place in the ride for 35 of the 55 miles.
>
> But whatever you do, it has to be specified, clearly and unambiguosly,
> in advance.
>
> One more time:  the award, as adopted by the BoD and currently
> defined, has two simple eligibility requirements:  the couple must be
> married, and the spouse with the fewer miles must have ridden at least
> half as many miles as the spouse with the greater number of miles.
> There is not and has never been any provision for prorating points.