F1 Chamionship by Fantasy Points System

Hi all. These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the points system from my Fantasy League site. http://www.TheOneFantasy.com Name Fantasy FIA 1 David Coultard 1,250 28 2 Michael Schumacher 1,210 36 3 Jarno Trulli 820 7 4 Nick Heidfeld 800 8 5 Rubens Barrichello 790 14 The points system rewards the drivers that are constant and those who finish most reliable. Here's the Constructors championship by the Fantasy Points System. Team Fantasy FIA 1 Ferrari 1,140 50 2 McLaren 1,005 32 3 Jordan 745 13 The points system rewards the teams that are constant and those who finish most reliable. Check out the site for more Fantasy Results and stats. You can also go and build your own team and gain Fantasy points of your own. The site is http://www.TheOneFantasy.com Regards Kevin Paynter KingAqua

"Kelvin Cline" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3af151ba$0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi all. > > These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the points system > from my Fantasy League site. > http://www.TheOneFantasy.com > > Name Fantasy FIA > 1 David Coultard 1,250 28 > 2 Michael Schumacher 1,210 36 > 3 Jarno Trulli 820 7 > 4 Nick Heidfeld 800 8 > 5 Rubens Barrichello 790 14 > > The points system rewards the drivers that are constant and those who

finish > most reliable. That's not the idea of F1 though, by definition the idea is to try and finish in the top 6 !! You're not going to do that by just being reliable, someone who finishes 1st twice in a season will beat someone who finishes 7th every race. It's much better to be fast occasionly than medium-paced all the time.

Kelvin Cline wrote: > These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the points system > from my Fantasy League site. > http://www.TheOneFantasy.com Sorry, Kelvin, but I think systems (like NASCAR) that don't place a premium on winning, are missing something important. There should be a big difference between winning and coming in 2nd. Rewarding consistent mediocrity isn't in the spirit of competition. Only rewarding six places is arguably too restrictive, because it doesn't differentiate between the mid pack runners, however. But I don't see that changing any time soon because of tradition. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

My 2 cents on the subject: A guy can get pole and be quick with a clear track.. god on ya (Damon Hill comes to mind). But if a guy can be consistent, quite often he will inch up the ranks and make a run for it (Barichello comes to mind in recent happenings). The whole argument is a double edged sword, but any real racer will tell you 'you have to cross the finish line to score any points... regardless of position in the points allocations...' The trick is to be consistently fast... then you score more points, at a higher return. Bottom line: As even Ferrari will tell you: 'You have to be fast... but you must also be consistent'. I think a focus on consistency is a nice alternative IMO. Throw in fast, and consistent... you are championship material. I wouldn't say that either point system is 'wrong', just that a fine balance for achievement (long and short term) should be rewarded accordingly. Cheers, Schumi "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Kelvin Cline wrote: > > > These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the pointssystem > > from my Fantasy League site. > > http://www.TheOneFantasy.com > > Sorry, Kelvin, but I think systems (like NASCAR) that don't place apremium on > winning, are missing something important. There should be a bigdifference > between winning and coming in 2nd. Rewarding consistent mediocrity isn'tin the

Quoted text (16 lines)

> spirit of competition. > > Only rewarding six places is arguably too restrictive, because it doesn't > differentiate between the mid pack runners, however. But I don't see that > changing any time soon because of tradition. > > Dave Ewing > > -- > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > ***************************************************** > > >

My 2 cents on the subject: A guy can get pole and be quick with a clear track.. god on ya (Damon Hill comes to mind). But if a guy can be consistent, quite often he will inch up the ranks and make a run for it (Barichello comes to mind in recent happenings). The whole argument is a double edged sword, but any real racer will tell you 'you have to cross the finish line to score any points... regardless of position in the points allocations...' The trick is to be consistently fast... then you score more points, at a higher return. Bottom line: As even Ferrari will tell you: 'You have to be fast... but you must also be consistent'. I think a focus on consistency is a nice alternative IMO. Throw in fast, and consistent... you are championship material. I wouldn't say that either point system is 'wrong', just that a fine balance for achievement (long and short term) should be rewarded accordingly. Cheers, Schumi > > These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the points system > > from my Fantasy League site. > > http://www.TheOneFantasy.com > Sorry, Kelvin, but I think systems (like NASCAR) that don't place a premium on > winning, are missing something important. There should be a big difference > between winning and coming in 2nd. Rewarding consistent mediocrity isn't in the

Quoted text (13 lines)

> spirit of competition. > Only rewarding six places is arguably too restrictive, because it doesn't > differentiate between the mid pack runners, however. But I don't see that > changing any time soon because of tradition. > Dave Ewing > -- > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing > *****************************************************

Scott Boham <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9crnkm$2la$[email hidden]... > "Kelvin Cline" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3af151ba$0$[email hidden]... > > Hi all. > > > > These are the Drivers Championship positions if you use the pointssystem

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > from my Fantasy League site. > > http://www.TheOneFantasy.com > > > > Name Fantasy FIA > > 1 David Coultard 1,250 28 > > 2 Michael Schumacher 1,210 36 > > 3 Jarno Trulli 820 7 > > 4 Nick Heidfeld 800 8 > > 5 Rubens Barrichello 790 14 > > > > The points system rewards the drivers that are constant and those who > finish > > most reliable. > > That's not the idea of F1 though, by definition the idea is to try and > finish in the top 6 !! You're not going to do that by just being

reliable, I agree with that but the point I'm trying to make is that by introducing a points system that lets all the drivers and teams gain points no matter where they finish, makes for more entertaining racing. The reason for that is that the teams won't just throw the towel in when something goes wrong with the car. Like with Rubins the past weekend. > someone who finishes 1st twice in a season will beat someone who finishes > 7th every race. It's much better to be fast occasionly than medium-paced > all the time. Being reliable won't make you a winner, but it will help you to be noticed by the rest of the world when they look at the score boards. This will help teams such as Arrows and Minardi to obtain better and more sponsorship money. This in turn will make them a better team and thus the racing will be closer and more entertaining.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>My 2 cents on the subject: > >A guy can get pole and be quick with a clear track.. god on ya (Damon Hill >comes to mind). But if a guy can be consistent, quite often he will inch up >the ranks and make a run for it (Barichello comes to mind in recent >happenings). > >The whole argument is a double edged sword, but any real racer will tell you >'you have to cross the finish line to score any points... regardless of >position in the points allocations...' > >The trick is to be consistently fast... then you score more points, at a >higher return. > >Bottom line: > >As even Ferrari will tell you: 'You have to be fast... but you must also be >consistent'. I think a focus on consistency is a nice alternative IMO. Throw >in fast, and consistent... you are championship material. > >I wouldn't say that either point system is 'wrong', just that a fine balance >for achievement (long and short term) should be rewarded accordingly.

It's a lot easier to be consistent than fast. In one of my GPL leagues, I usually run 11-14th. In another, I'm 7-10th. The spots I gain are because people crash, or disco. It's not like I'm actually *competing* for the spot, though. If you can stay on the track, you can be consistent. Winning(or even scoring points) is TOTALLY different, unfortunately... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.