Points Scores... Penny For Your Thoughts???

[deeks6]

If we were using a more sensible points system such as WDC (10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1), (and eliminating the reverse grid farces) the result would look like this after Oran Park:

1. Craig Lowndes (4 wins) 97
2. Mark Skaife (5 wins) 63
3. Rick Kelly (0) 59
4. Garth Tander (2 wins) 57
5. Jason Bright (1 win) 46
6. Mark Winterbottom (0) 33
7. Steven Richards (0) 32
8. Todd Kelly (1 win) 31
9. Russell Ingall (0) 25
10. Jamie Whincup (1 win) 22
11. James Courtney (0) 14
12. Cameron McConville (0) 9
13. Jason Richards (0) 8
14. Paul Dumbrell (0) 6
15. Steven Johnson (0) 5
15. Max Wilson (0) 5
17. Greg Murphy (0) 4
18. Lee Holdsworth (0) 3
19. Paul Radisich (0) 2

A whole lot more reflective of the true results in my opinion. Lowndes has been a standout and, despite his problems, any driver (Skaife) who can win 5 of the 14 Fair Dinkum races should be a lot closer to the top than 13th or wherever he is.

[peckstar]

well thanks for proving (in my opinion) why the WDC system is crap

[Erki]

This is the old WDC (10-6-4-3-2-1)
Reverse grid races are exluded from the points
Pos Driver TOTAL Diff
1 Craig Lowndes 79 0
2 Mark Skaife 57 -22
3 Garth Tander 42 -37
4 Jason Bright 38 -41
5 Rick Kelly 37 -42
6 Todd Kelly 23 -56
7 Mark Winterbottom 17 -62
8 Jamie Whincup 16 -63
9 Russell Ingall 13 -66
10 Steven Richards 11 -68
11 Jason Richards 8 -71
11 James Courtney 8 -71
13 Paul Dumbrell 5 -74
14 Steven Johnson 3 -76
14 Cameron McConville 3 -76
16 Greg Murphy 2 -77
17 Max Wilson 1 -78
17 Lee Holdsworth 1 -78

[Erki]

And this it the old WRC style (20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1), again, RG races don't count

Pos Driver TOTAL Diff
1 Craig Lowndes 190 0
2 Mark Skaife 126 -64
3 Garth Tander 123 -67
4 Rick Kelly 115 -75
5 Jason Bright 102 -88
6 Mark Winterbottom 72 -118
7 Steven Richards 65 -125
8 Todd Kelly 61 -129
9 Russell Ingall 55 -135
10 Jamie Whincup 53 -137
11 Jason Richards 34 -156
12 James Courtney 32 -158
13 Paul Dumbrell 26 -164
14 Steven Johnson 21 -169
15 Cameron McConville 18 -172
16 Max Wilson 13 -177
17 Greg Murphy 12 -178
18 Lee Holdsworth 6 -184
19 Paul Radisich 4 -186
20 Will Davison 3 -187
21 Brad Jones 2 -188
22 Jason Bargwanna 1 -189
Pay attention on that Dean Canto's second best result is only 13th, from 3rd race at Queensland.

[Chatters]

This is the current WDC Points System (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1) with half points awarded for RG (5-4-3-2-1):

1. Craig Lowndes 105
2. Skaife 74
3. Tander 70
4. R.Kelly 63
5. Bright 57
6. Richards 36
7. Winterbottom 36
8. T.Kelly 31
9. Whincup 29
10. Ingall 27
11. J.Richards 25
12. Courtney 18
13. Dumbrell 12
14. McConville 11
15. Johnson 11
16. Canto 8
17. Murphy 7
18. Holdsworth 6
19. Wilson 5
20. Radisich 2
21. Luff 2
22. Davison 1

[Erki]

Whichever points system we use, the leader is always the same. Lowndes is class of the field. But the big(and fair) winner would be Mr Skaife.

[D.R.T.]

I'd stay well clear of the current FIA point scoring system.

The old one works good. The WSBK/ Moto GP is still a clear winner though.

[Notso Swift]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I'd stay well clear of the current FIA point scoring system.

The old one works good. The WSBK/ Moto GP is still a clear winner though.

Bikes have had it right for the last 20 years. I am trying to bring it in for our club championship, since even state rounds think it is good to give points to everyone.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I'd stay well clear of the current FIA point scoring system.

The old one works good. The WSBK/ Moto GP is still a clear winner though.

I agree - however, the WDC system is a hell of a lot better than the ridiculous "chase for the nextel cup" system that we have now.
I actually prefer ther original 10,6,4,3,2,1 system where points are HARD EARNED and if you appear on the board, you have done a good job ... now you get something for trundling around 6 laps behind which just devalues it.

And for those "we got something to show the sponsors" people - don't treat your sponsors like they are fools.

I believe that we need to lobby for this as they are considering points for next year.
Mods, can we have a poll on the best system:

Old Style WDC (10,6,4,3,2,1)
New Style WDC (10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1)
WRC System
Moto GP System
Current NASCAR system
Any others of note

[peckstar]

so i whaqcked some lira into researc and shazam here are the results based on the round (not the races) which is pete and mine (believe or not) preferred method

old GP system 10 6 4 3 2 1

1 Craig Lowndes 41
2 Garth Tander 26
3 Rick Kelly 23
4 Mark Skaife 19
5 Steven Richards 13
6 Mark Winterbottom 12
7 Jason Bright 12
8 Jamie Whincup 10
9 Russell Ingall 8
10 Steven Johnson 5
11 James Courtney 4
12 Todd Kelly 4
13 Jason Richards 3
14 Paul Dumbrell 1
15 Lee Holdsworth 1


new system 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 Craig Lowndes 47
2 Rick Kelly 37
3 Garth Tander 36
4 Mark Skaife 25
5 Mark Winterbottom 24
6 Russell Ingall 18
7 Steven Richards 17
8 Jason Bright 17
9 Steven Johnson 11
10 Jamie Whincup 10
11 James Courtney 7
12 Todd Kelly 6
13 Jason Richards 5
14 Paul Dumbrell 5
15 Lee Holdsworth 3
16 Jason Bargwanna 2
17 Cameron McConville 1
18 Paul Radisich 1
19 Steve Owen 1


no murph in either system

[GTRMagic]

How nice.

And when the SuperCheap team puts out a press release saying how well their drivers are doing, they put up the point score..

"G. Murphy 0 points"

And Mr Rowe and friends on the board of SuperCheap sit back and say....

"Sheesh this car racing lark costs us $4m per annum (either in kind or $$) and with all that mooolah they cant even get a single point."

And promptly gets piddled off....

Even if it is only a marketing tool, putting out any press information saying your team has zero points, when the leader of the series has 47 points, does not immediately imply that the winning time is infinitely better than the team you sponsor..

There are (at worst) only 2 wood duck teams in the field at the moment.. but in most of the pointscores above, there are other 'hurt' by a loss of points, despite being reasonably competitive outfits...

[rustyinsthoz]

The Moto points system is the best system by far. The top 3 place getters have a wide spread of points to encourage passing. It would pay down to 15th place so you have hope of scoring some points if you have a bad round.
The current WDC points scoring system is no better than the current V8 system. If you only paid points out down to 6th or 8th, then if you are having a bad round, you would just park the car.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

How nice.

And when the SuperCheap team puts out a press release saying how well their drivers are doing, they put up the point score..

"G. Murphy 0 points"

And Mr Rowe and friends on the board of SuperCheap sit back and say....

"Sheesh this car racing lark costs us $4m per annum (either in kind or $$) and with all that mooolah they cant even get a single point."

And promptly gets piddled off....

Even if it is only a marketing tool, putting out any press information saying your team has zero points, when the leader of the series has 47 points, does not immediately imply that the winning time is infinitely better than the team you sponsor..

There are (at worst) only 2 wood duck teams in the field at the moment.. but in most of the pointscores above, there are other 'hurt' by a loss of points, despite being reasonably competitive outfits...

With respect, GTR, that is utter cr@p ... are you seriously telling me that these sponsors and board members are going to look at the Leader Board and say "oh, Murfs got 1080 points to Lowndes 1918 ... we're going OK ..."
Do you think Mr Supercheap is happy about NOT seeing Supercheap on the Teev? Could he possibly be smart enough to work out the reason is that his car is not somewhere near the pointy end?

Are you saying that these people that run multi-million dollar outfits walk around with a bit of Merino fur over their eyelids???

Or do you think that they look at it this way -

5, DNF, DNF, 15, 15, 14, 3 (Reverse grid), 19, 9, DNF, DNF, 26, 9 (rev grid), 12, 11, 17, 10, 13, DNF, 10

"Hmmm, we've got one of the best drivers out there and these are the results we're getting ... Hueston, we have a problem!"

Pray tell, how do you interpret these results as REMOTELY competitive?

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by rustyinsthoz

If you only paid points out down to 6th or 8th, then if you are having a bad round, you would just park the car.

And so you should ... that way, you will not be getting in the way of competition. AND, this "getting out there and getting some points for our sponsors" is rubbish - the TV is not going to show your car anyway.

Further point - much of the sponsorship side of motor racing is about the merchandising ... you wear it, you hang it up, you drink out of it, you write with it. Its not just about the paint on the car.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by deeks6

With respect, GTR, that is utter cr@p ... are you seriously telling me that these sponsors and board members are going to look at the Leader Board and say "oh, Murfs got 1080 points to Lowndes 1918 ... we're going OK ..."
Do you think Mr Supercheap is happy about NOT seeing Supercheap on the Teev? Could he possibly be smart enough to work out the reason is that his car is not somewhere near the pointy end?

Are you saying that these people that run multi-million dollar outfits walk around with a bit of Merino fur over their eyelids???

Or do you think that they look at it this way -

5, DNF, DNF, 15, 15, 14, 3 (Reverse grid), 19, 9, DNF, DNF, 26, 9 (rev grid), 12, 11, 17, 10, 13, DNF, 10

"Hmmm, we've got one of the best drivers out there and these are the results we're getting ... Hueston, we have a problem!"

Pray tell, how do you interpret these results as REMOTELY competitive?

Sorry to disappoint you, it isnt crap.

When the sponsor with the chequebook whose main raison d'etre is not to manage the intimate details of a sporting partnership, they shall pick up on the small details...

... like how the winner of the series has 47 points, and the driver they sponsor has zero points.

They may not like the sport particularly, or even if they do... they understand enough about ZERO POINTS to know its not a good thing.

3 options.. stay and get zero, go elsewhere, go out.

Why give them that reason to look?

This issue has been raised with a number of sponsors in the series currently, and those of recent involvement, and this is one (of a number..) of different things they had to offer about the sport.

[peckstar]

better still why not just have 8 cars in the championship

think you might be a bit off track there deeks saying you should park it.

Th tv does still show your car, i have seem skaife ten laps down making a pit stop and we get full screen showing of the pit stop

the tv likes to follow the battle for spots. Jamie led race 3 on sunday but we hardly saw him because he had dissapeared into the distance, so the tv showed the battle for places further down (understandibly)

even if your car is getting passed sponsors get to be seen

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by peckstar

so i whaqcked some lira into researc and shazam here are the results based on the round (not the races) which is pete and mine (believe or not) preferred method

old GP system 10 6 4 3 2 1

1 Craig Lowndes 41
2 Garth Tander 26
3 Rick Kelly 23
4 Mark Skaife 19
5 Steven Richards 13
6 Mark Winterbottom 12
7 Jason Bright 12
8 Jamie Whincup 10
9 Russell Ingall 8
10 Steven Johnson 5
11 James Courtney 4
12 Todd Kelly 4
13 Jason Richards 3
14 Paul Dumbrell 1
15 Lee Holdsworth 1

That takes Reverse Grid into consideration - here it is without reverse grid...

Lowndes 48
Skaife 30
Tander 22
Rick Kelly 19
Jason Bright 14
Todd Kelly 11
Jamie Whincup 10
Steve Richards, Mark Winterbottom 7
Russell Ingall, James Courtney 4
Jason Richards, Paul Dumbrell 3
Steve Johnson 2

Again, much more reflective of the true competition.

[SRabbit]

On the flip side to no points = no sponsor argument...if points are made to be golden, wouldn't a team and their sponsor be absolutley thrilled and over the moon to get even 1? Don't just look at the downside of missing out - look at the positive of gaining apoints paying position

Using one of the sytems above Holdsworth has 1 point - ok 1 isn't 47, but you're on the board when they are tough to get and GRM can now go to their sponsors and say look how much better we are doing as a privtae team compared to the multinational backed teams...

coming 15th may actually mean something under that system compared to what someone may say about coming 15th now....just a thought...

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Sorry to disappoint you, it isnt crap.

When the sponsor with the chequebook whose main raison d'etre is not to manage the intimate details of a sporting partnership, they shall pick up on the small details...

... like how the winner of the series has 47 points, and the driver they sponsor has zero points.

They may not like the sport particularly, or even if they do... they understand enough about ZERO POINTS to know its not a good thing.

3 options.. stay and get zero, go elsewhere, go out.

Why give them that reason to look?

This issue has been raised with a number of sponsors in the series currently, and those of recent involvement, and this is one (of a number..) of different things they had to offer about the sport.

Sorry, but you're very wrong ... and you are also guilty of treating these people like they are fools.

Sponsorship is just like anything else - there are 2 questions to ask:
1. What is the purpose?
2. What are we going to get out of it?

Lets take purpose ... in marketing parlance, most of the time you may want to achieve either AWARENESS or increase REACH (assuming that you have defined your target market. And they have various measuring mechanisms for these (surveys etc).

Awareness is when you have a product that few or no consumers know about and it is all about the name - just put it everywhere you can. Fosters is a good example when they were on the worldwide expansion trail. In V8SC, the Dick Johnson team would be one where awareness is the probable aim with their sponsorships. In F1, you see names on cars and wonder what the hell they are until they then set up in this country (HSBC for e.g). Most smart marketers would divide their spend on a mix of sponsorship, advertising and promotional activity and then see which is the most effective.

Reach is all about increasing the logical customer base having a clear defined market and proper brand association. For example, Supercheap would figure it is better to be associated with something cars and performance that Ian Thorpe, for instance. It can be measured by associating promotions directly linked to the sponsorship as well as using tools that are provided by marketing/advertising companies that measure the screen time of brands/sponsors at major events. I can tell you for a fact that Mitre 10 pulled the plug on Larko because this measure dropped considerably over a 2 year period and they were acheiving their aims much more effectively via promotions. And he had Press Releases coming out of his ears ...

There is also the added value for sponsors to treat their customers to an experience - box at footy, car races, whatever. Do these people give a rats whether the Supercheap or Betta car wins? Probably not .. it's all about the relationship marketing of the sponsor to customers.

This "points for the sponsors" is a MYTH - the sponsors know EXACTLY what they are doing and no amount of Press Releases or other smoke and mirrors will fool them.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by rustyinsthoz

If you only paid points out down to 6th or 8th, then if you are having a bad round, you would just park the car.

You prefer seeing damaged cars trundling round 5 laps off the pace getting in people's way just so they can get a few points for finishing 30th?

[bazil]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Sorry, but you're very wrong ... and you are also guilty of treating these people like they are fools.

Sponsorship is just like anything else - there are 2 questions to ask:
1. What is the purpose?
2. What are we going to get out of it?

Lets take purpose ... in marketing parlance, most of the time you may want to achieve either AWARENESS or increase REACH (assuming that you have defined your target market. And they have various measuring mechanisms for these (surveys etc).

Awareness is when you have a product that few or no consumers know about and it is all about the name - just put it everywhere you can. Fosters is a good example when they were on the worldwide expansion trail. In V8SC, the Dick Johnson team would be one where awareness is the probable aim with their sponsorships. In F1, you see names on cars and wonder what the hell they are until they then set up in this country (HSBC for e.g). Most smart marketers would divide their spend on a mix of sponsorship, advertising and promotional activity and then see which is the most effective.

Reach is all about increasing the logical customer base having a clear defined market and proper brand association. For example, Supercheap would figure it is better to be associated with something cars and performance that Ian Thorpe, for instance. It can be measured by associating promotions directly linked to the sponsorship as well as using tools that are provided by marketing/advertising companies that measure the screen time of brands/sponsors at major events. I can tell you for a fact that Mitre 10 pulled the plug on Larko because this measure dropped considerably over a 2 year period and they were acheiving their aims much more effectively via promotions. And he had Press Releases coming out of his ears ...

There is also the added value for sponsors to treat their customers to an experience - box at footy, car races, whatever. Do these people give a rats whether the Supercheap or Betta car wins? Probably not .. it's all about the relationship marketing of the sponsor to customers.

This "points for the sponsors" is a MYTH - the sponsors know EXACTLY what they are doing and no amount of Press Releases or other smoke and mirrors will fool them.

Fosters went on a world wide marketing campaign to find people to drink their lousy beer!No-one drinks it here so we sell it to other countrys that would not know a decent beer if it bit them..

As for your comments on sponsorship I can promise you its not just about stickers on cars anymore and only rarley is it just a branding exercise. Its about sales and the bottom line. Companys that can afford 1-4 million dollars from their marketing budget are not dazzled by corporate seating and stickers alone nor are they fooled by make believe TV exposure $ values.They want results from a variety of options including marketing and offtrack promotion, Data sharing, B to B oppitunitys,Introductions,Customer satisfaction programmes, staff reward programes,Joint ventures and much more. They also expect the usual car and team signage oppitunitys as well corporate entertaining together with constant communicataion and updates.

Points for sponsors is not a myth as you suggest because it is all about perception. Sure we all know Supercheap are not having a good season and I can tell you first hand that sometimes it is difficult to make a silk purse from a sows ear but you try none the less. But if it does not effect the outcome of the Championship or who wins etc does it really matter?? I think the most important thing is that we end up with the most worthy champion sadly this is not always the case.

[Erki]

I think MotoGP system is the best. It gives points for 15 places, that's a little bit less than half th field. So if you score points, you have done better than half the field.

One good thing with the old GP system is that the winning team always gets most(or equal to second) team points as well: 10=6+4

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by bazil

Fosters went on a world wide marketing campaign to find people to drink their lousy beer!No-one drinks it here so we sell it to other countrys that would not know a decent beer if it bit them..

Yes - VB does suck and why anyone who makes Heinekin and Stella and Moosehead would want to drink that rubbish is beyond me too.

Originally Posted by bazil

As for your comments on sponsorship I can promise you its not just about stickers on cars anymore and only rarley is it just a branding exercise. Its about sales and the bottom line. Companys that can afford 1-4 million dollars from their marketing budget are not dazzled by corporate seating and stickers alone nor are they fooled by make believe TV exposure $ values.They want results from a variety of options including marketing and offtrack promotion, Data sharing, B to B oppitunitys,Introductions,Customer satisfaction programmes, staff reward programes,Joint ventures and much more. They also expect the usual car and team signage oppitunitys as well corporate entertaining together with constant communicataion and updates.

Points for sponsors is not a myth as you suggest because it is all about perception.

However, you have got this all horribly wrong ... if you think somebody is expecting to sell more product because they have their name on a racing car, you are deluded. Most of this is about awareness - repetition of the name and then supported by promotions, trade shows, demos etc etc.
Examples - who had ever heard of Tru Blu or Greens Tuff or Orrcon?
It's also about MAINTAINING a market presence - Examples - Toll, Supercheap - because they want to have that brand present and have consumers believe it to be strong, especially if they are already the market leader. OR, if they are not the market leader - to ACT like it.
Example - most V8 Supercar followers would believe that Supercheap is bigger than Autobarn ... it aint the case by a longshot.

Look at all the sponsors and ask why they made decisions. TV exposure is not "make believe" as you would say - Bathurst is still the most watched motor sport event in the country (even by non motor sport regulars) and sponsors will eagerly add up their exposure and compare it to the cost of regular TV advertising ... I.E. how many did we reach, how many times and what did it cost? Naturally, they will support this with perhaps event sponsorship (Supercheap) and track adverts and TV adverts as well as on track and off track promotions. Many sponsors will devote a huge amount of their budget to certain events (e.g. AAMI - Melbourne Cup/Derby).

It is about the brand and brand association NOT sales - no marketer in his right mind is going to think he will sell more Brut 33 by slapping a few stickers on some race cars(or whatever) - however, once those consumers know the name, the smart marketer will make sure the product is then described at some other point where that consumer will be - because he has RESEARCHED it thoroughly.

It IS NOT ABOUT THE POINTS that Fred Bloggs (or Greg Murphy or whoever) gets in the championship - repeat it is NOT ABOUT THE POINTS - the sponsor could care less how many points he gets as long as the car is SEEN A LOT. Admittedly, that should be in a good light (not crashing, breaking down etc) and being at the pointy (excuse the pun) end of the field is far preferable.

Here's your homework - next time you are at a Supercheap store, ask the manager where Greg Murphy is coming in the Title? Or how many poinbts he has?

[pete55]

[QUOTE=deeks

Look at all the sponsors and ask why they made decisions. TV exposure is not "make believe" as you would say - Bathurst is still the most watched motor sport event in the country (even by non motor sport regulars) and sponsors will eagerly add up their exposure and compare it to the cost of regular TV advertising ... I.E. how many did we reach, how many times and what did it cost? Naturally, they will support this with perhaps event sponsorship (Supercheap) and track adverts and TV adverts as well as on track and off track promotions. Many sponsors will devote a huge amount of their budget to certain events (e.g. AAMI - Melbourne Cup/Derby).

It is about the brand and brand association NOT sales - no marketer in his right mind is going to think he will sell more Brut 33 by slapping a few stickers on some race cars(or whatever) - however, once those consumers know the name, the smart marketer will make sure the product is then described at some other point where that consumer will be - because he has RESEARCHED it thoroughly.

It IS NOT ABOUT THE POINTS that Fred Bloggs (or Greg Murphy or whoever) gets in the championship - repeat it is NOT ABOUT THE POINTS - the sponsor could care less how many points he gets as long as the car is SEEN A LOT. Admittedly, that should be in a good light (not crashing, breaking down etc) and being at the pointy (excuse the pun) end of the field is far preferable.

Here's your homework - next time you are at a Supercheap store, ask the manager where Greg Murphy is coming in the Title? Or how many poinbts he has?[/QUOTE]

I guess you should ask WPS and Paul Morris why they are in the series also.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by pete55

I guess you should ask WPS and Paul Morris why they are in the series also.

WPS - Rich Fat Bloke indulging on ego trip with Fat Wallet
Morris - Fat Bloke indulging on ego trip with Rich Dad's Fat Wallet

You'll always get these in motor sport ... what's that they say about a "substitute" ?