Home

The next major competition I am looking at getting organised for is the Spring Classics 2015. I would also like to get some prizes organised for a mini-league if it is still possible to run a standard mini-league competition.

Is anyone able to tell me how the Spring Classics will run this year?

For example:

- Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb ... that's less than a month away.

- Will it be possible for players to run a mini-league for this with just standard scoring on its own, i.e. not standard + purist + whatever scores all added together as aggregate league "scores".

235 comments

Avatar
Joelsim [1975 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Don't forget there is no Strade Bianche this year

Avatar
Joelsim [1975 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

TheDoctor is absolutely correct!

Avatar
Gkam84 [9138 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

No, we only covered the women's world cup last year and started in plenty of time.

I have no idea what is happening this year with the women's nor the spring classics.

The game is getting over complicated for me and the back end isn't very easy either, plus my time is slowly getting taken up by various work. So I doubt I'll be running a women's cup this year  20

Avatar
Stumps [3493 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

No, we only covered the women's world cup last year and started in plenty of time.

I have no idea what is happening this year with the women's nor the spring classics.

The game is getting over complicated for me and the back end isn't very easy either, plus my time is slowly getting taken up by various work. So I doubt I'll be running a women's cup this year  20

Thats a shame no womens comp, i was hoping to be shite at both the mens and womens races.  20

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

No, we only covered the women's world cup last year and started in plenty of time.

I have no idea what is happening this year with the women's nor the spring classics.

The game is getting over complicated for me and the back end isn't very easy either, plus my time is slowly getting taken up by various work. So I doubt I'll be running a women's cup this year  20

I've had a bit to do with processing stats for fantasy games and I appreciate what is going on behind the interface to make the game work, and am grateful for your efforts.

I'd be happy to help you sort out some stuff to alleviate some of the workload that is being done by only a few guys at the moment. I think a lot of users would be happy to help out - many people who are attracted to play fantasy sports have experience in IT and number crunching.

Avatar
odaniel1 [5 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Nix wrote:

Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb ... that's less than a month away.

The Omloop is on the 28th this year.

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
odaniel1 wrote:
Nix wrote:

Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb ... that's less than a month away.

The Omloop is on the 28th this year.

Correct, thanks

Avatar
cgipryan [212 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

There was an idea on the forum last year to break the calssics into 2 separate competitions (to separate the cobbled(ish) ones and the Ardennes ones) and therefore to eliminate the unlimited-transfers-for-each-race rule. I liked it, 'cause I think it would make things a lot more interesting. What do you think about this?

Avatar
TERatcliffe26 [4782 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
cgipryan wrote:

There was an idea on the forum last year to break the calssics into 2 separate competitions (to separate the cobbled(ish) ones and the Ardennes ones) and therefore to eliminate the unlimited-transfers-for-each-race rule. I liked it, 'cause I think it would make things a lot more interesting. What do you think about this?

unlimited transfers can be eliminated now anyway, so for example we may have 20 transfers for the 6 stages etc

Avatar
cgipryan [212 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

True, but if the same races remain in one competition like last year, the transition from Paris-Roubaix to Amstel will really hurt, transfer-wise  26

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

The less transfers you have the more luck becomes a factor .. simple as that.

Limiting transfers doesn't make sense when teams don't have to announce their riders for all the races before the first 1 and then keep the same riders for all 10 or so Spring Classics over 2 months.

Avatar
Stumps [3493 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Splitting it into 2 groups seems the most sensible approach. I dont have a problem with say 20 transfers over each part, yes luck does come into it, but so does a lot of effort finding out about the riders, the course and probably the bit where i fall down a lot, the final km.

Just look at Dubai, flat as a pancake yet the last 200m is 17% on todays stage.

Avatar
TERatcliffe26 [4782 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
cgipryan wrote:

True, but if the same races remain in one competition like last year, the transition from Paris-Roubaix to Amstel will really hurt, transfer-wise  26

But if there were 7 stages, 20 transfers would be plenty to account for a change.
you would effectively have 2 between the stages of same type = 10 + 10 to account for the transition, so Im not sure on the problem

eg san remo - 2 - Gent - 2 - Ronde - 2 - Roubaix - 10 - Amstel - 2 - fleche - 2 - Liege.

Obviously with the way the transfers are you can use them how you wish, so for just those 7 I think 20 or 25 max would be suitable for transfer amounts. If more races are included then increase the transfers sufficiently. At the end of the day for a grand tour of 21 stages with just as much variety will only see you have 50 or 60 transfers, 25 would be plenty for 7 stages

Avatar
cgipryan [212 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

You're right (well, in grand tours there are GC points available, and that changes things a bit, because you can keep, say, the leader of the race even for a sprint stage; but that's a technicality, of course).
I'm just not sure it would make too much sense to allow enough transfers so that most players could make an entire team makeover between cobbles and Ardennes. In that case, it might make more sense to have unlimited transfers just between Roubaix and Amstel, for example, and limit the number of transfers before and after... I think we had something like this a few years back, actually...

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

However, in a 3 week grand tour:
- the event organiser can't decide to invite different teams to each stage,
- the team DS can't decide to interchange riders for each stage from a bench of about 30 riders.

Trades shouldn't have to be used to compensate for changes in startlists.

If people want to play a purist of podium cafe type game where they are effectively guessing startlists they can play purist. Why try to force a limit in the trades in the standard game?

Avatar
TERatcliffe26 [4782 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

The game has always had limits in one form or another and to say that having 25 transfers for 7 stages is comparable to the podium cafe game is not really fair. Past experience suggests that startlists between the first for 4 races I have listed and the 2nd 3 races do not change dramatically and thus is not a big guess. 25 is already a complete squad change more than you would get for a GT and there compensates (imo anyway) for any unforced startlist changes etc. I can guarantee if you split the classics in two sections you will get far less trades

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
TERatcliffe26 wrote:

The game has always had limits in one form or another ... I can guarantee if you split the classics in two sections you will get far less trades

My recollection is the Spring Classics had unlimited trades last year from race to race ... i.e. no limit.

Players who want to do less trades, e.g. 25 trades, can do so under an unlimited trade scenario. No one is forcing them to trade more if they don't want to.

I still haven't seen any argument as to why players who do want to trade more, even start from scratch again and change their whole squad from race to race in the classics, should be restricted from doing so.

This is an issue in most fantasy games for all sports I am aware of. Players who regularly finish up the top wanting to make the game more restrictive. But more trades = more engagement = more website hits = easier to attract new players = a growing game = better prizes.

In Australia the Classics aren't followed much except by very keen cycling fans, interest is a lot less than for Grand Tours. Last year was the first year that a few were shown on live free to air TV. So this year I was hoping to attract more interest by running a classics comp. However, having trade restrictions makes the game more of a turn-off for players who don't know much about the classics in the first place.

Experienced players are not disadvantaged in any way by a game that has more trades, they just have less of an advantage. However, inexperienced players have a big disadvantage in games with less trades because they get punished more for a wrong choice .. and newer players make more wrong choices.

Avatar
TERatcliffe26 [4782 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Last year was an exception for trades, it was trialled without trades, and previously had trades.

It was too easy last year with trades between each race.

I believe there will be trades this year and no unlimited transfers between stages, which is another reason transfers are being given as a total for the whole competition, use them as you wish, use strategy and plan.

Your argument for making it easier for those who know less doesn't always work either as you make it too less of a challenge for keen follows then they stop playing as its too easy

Avatar
enrique [2421 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Nix wrote:

Trades shouldn't have to be used to compensate for changes in startlists....If people want to play a purist of podium cafe type game where they are effectively guessing startlists they can play purist.

I basically agree with Nix...

.

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

Last year was an exception for trades, it was trialled without trades, and previously had trades...

I know you're right but there's something really funky about this competition, namely what Nix pointed out, that:

1. Different teams are invited to different races
2. Teams swap out their riders at will

It feels weird to have to plan on certain riders being there for some of the competition and not another, especially the support riders, and have a limit on transfers when the rosters change so much from race to race.

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

It was too easy last year with trades between each race.

I think most people didn't mind having unlimited transfers between the races and currently prefer having unlimited transfers or something like 6 transfers available between stages rather than planning on using only 2 between races... I'd be surprised if a majority of the players favored very limited transfers... I think offering unlimited transfers or something like 6 between races makes it reasonable, manageable and fun...

.

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

... you make it too less of a challenge for keen follows then they stop playing as its too easy...

I don't think so... I can't imagine anyone would stop playing because we had too many transfers available for this competition... In a GT? Yes, this one? I don't think so. I just wonder if there are other players that support your notion that restricting the transfers 'ruins' the game by making it 'too easy'. That, to me , is a poor reason to resort to limiting transfers...

.

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

I believe there will be trades this year and no unlimited transfers between stages...

I hope not... Unnecesary stress, if you ask me...

To sum it up, I agree with Nix...

Nix wrote:

I still haven't seen any argument as to why players who do want to trade more, even start from scratch again and change their whole squad from race to race in the classics, should be restricted from doing so....

Why not? Except for TER's argument it makes it too easy, is there any other reason to restrict the transfers?...  39

Avatar
cgipryan [212 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Well, I began all this discussion and it is because I think there is another reason. Not that it is too easy, but that it is boring. The classics were boring last year simply because it was not a competition, but a string of competitions (each race was a competition in its own right) with a single points total (which only gave the illusion that it was just one competition). Granted, that I found it boring is a subjective judgement, but that is why I asked your opinions on the forum.
Personally, I think picking a team should commit you in the long run, and not just for the stage you pick it for. Otherwise there is no planning involved and it is, I find, no fun. I repeat, for me this is not about who is right and who is wrong, but about what is more fun.
(That being said, I think Nix makes a good point that players less familiar with it all might feel lost in the versions of the game that I find to be fun.)

Avatar
enrique [2421 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
cgipryan wrote:

Well, I began all this discussion and it is because I think there is another reason... it is boring...

I understand, but (!) I have little sympathy for you (  4 )... According to my handy dandy spreadsheet, there were 334 different riders that partook in the 'Cobbled Classics' - which I conveniently labeled OML, KBK, E3, GW, FLA, and PRB - Are they all cobbled? What do I know? -  45 - Anyways, that's quite a bit more riders to choose from than a GT... I think it's mindblowing to limit transfers for these races myself... but ... for everyone's benefit here's a list of the riders that rode all 6 of these races last year...
.

Sep Vanmarcke Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Tom Boonen Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
Sebastian Langeveld Garmin Sharp
Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
Jean-Pierre Drucker Wanty - Groupe Gobert
Maarten Wynants Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Guillaume Van Keirsbulck Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Tyler Farrar Garmin Sharp
Egoitz Garcia Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Luke Rowe Team Sky
Florian Senechal Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Bernhard Eisel Team Sky
Luca Paolini Team Katusha
Lloyd Mondory AG2R La Mondiale
Sebastien Turgot AG2R La Mondiale
Cyril Lemoine Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Jelle Wallays Topsport Vlaanderen - Baloise
Reinardt Janse Van Rensburg Team Giant-Shimano
Yoann Offredo FDJ.fr
Gert Joeaar Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Adrien Petit Cofidis, Solutions Credits
Bram Tankink Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Koen De Kort Team Giant-Shimano
Vladimir Isaychev Team Katusha
Tim Declercq Topsport Vlaanderen - Baloise
Lars Ytting Bak Lotto Belisol
Mirko Selvaggi Wanty - Groupe Gobert
Silvan Dillier BMC Racing Team
Alexandre Pichot Team Europcar
Maarten Tjallingii Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Christian Knees Team Sky
Raymond Kreder Garmin Sharp
Salvatore Puccio Team Sky
Damien Gaudin AG2R La Mondiale
David Boucher FDJ.fr
Jens Debusschere Lotto Belisol
Mickael Delage FDJ.fr
Aleksejs Saramotins IAM Cycling

,
I basically agree with Nix:

Nix wrote:

Players who want to do less trades, e.g. 25 trades, can do so under an unlimited trade scenario. No one is forcing them to trade more if they don't want to....

But (!) to cater to you, I would run a forum competition awarding you 10 points for every unused transfer you have left, under TER's (hopefully) hypothetical situation above, at the end of the competition!  4

Avatar
TERatcliffe26 [4782 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Equally im not saying all ive said is correct, personally I like a challenge, and I like to plan.

I was also saying that although hypothetical, the scenario of how it may work is how I believe it will be run (unless Dave decides to run it with unlimited transfers between each so called stage) however after implementing the new transfer method as bundle I do not think it will be run with unlimited

Avatar
Twybaydos [449 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I would split Ardennes as a separate competition. With the new transfer rules you are going to get new (and old) players rinsing their transfers by Paris Roubaix giving them no interest in some of the best races of the year, losing interest in the game which you may not get back before TDF. Also by splitting the two there can be a proper purist competition going on.

Secondly - Strade Bianche - It's the best race of the year, it's not got the proper Etixx cobble team or Sep playing and wouldn't fit in a big Belgian comp. Could this be a stand-alone race like Clasica San Sebastian. On similar lines there is an argument to treat MSR the same,

Limiting the spring classics to a more Belgian-specific competition could add Dwars door Vlaanderen to the game.

Avatar
Joelsim [1975 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Twybaydos wrote:

I would split Ardennes as a separate competition. With the new transfer rules you are going to get new (and old) players rinsing their transfers by Paris Roubaix giving them no interest in some of the best races of the year, losing interest in the game which you may not get back before TDF. Also by splitting the two there can be a proper purist competition going on.

Secondly - Strade Bianche - It's the best race of the year, it's not got the proper Etixx cobble team or Sep playing and wouldn't fit in a big Belgian comp. Could this be a stand-alone race like Clasica San Sebastian. On similar lines there is an argument to treat MSR the same,

Limiting the spring classics to a more Belgian-specific competition could add Dwars door Vlaanderen to the game.

Agree. There is not much crossover in some of these races like scheldeprij and Ronde etc

Avatar
dave atkinson [6525 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

there's a number of issues at play here. having the spring classics as one competition makes it more accessible to everyone, especially if splitting it up means non-premium members have to use two (or even three) competitions to play it all. that makes it difficult to play as a purist, because there's so much changing of the rosters start to finish. for that reason i wasn't planning to have a purist competition for the spring classics this year. it doesn't really work, and never has, to be honest. it's pointless picking a squad for the whole lot and doesn't feel very purist making unlimited changes after every race.

my current plan is to run the spring classics as one comp with more transfers than you'd get in a grand tour but less than you'd need to swap your whole team around each time. so maybe base it on three transfers per race for the grouped races and six in the transitions. with an explanatory email going out to everyone (but aimed at new users) giving an overview of how the races fall into groups.

Avatar
enrique [2421 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:

...my current plan is to run the spring classics as one comp with more transfers than you'd get in a grand tour but less than you'd need to swap your whole team around each time. so maybe base it on three transfers per race for the grouped races and six in the transitions. with an explanatory email going out to everyone (but aimed at new users) giving an overview of how the races fall into groups.

If you're going to do that, I'd ask for 8 transfers, if it's 8 rider teams, or 9 transfers, if it's 9 rider teams, just because I think it's fair to do a complete overhaul from the Cobbbled races to the Ardennes Classics... looking at the races as two groups, Cobbled Races vs. Ardennes Classics, only the following riders scored at least 1 point in both groups of races:

.
Bjorn Leukemans
Tony Gallopin
Dries Devenyns

I honestly think the transition from the Cobbled Classics to the Ardennes merits a full reboot of one's team. And, if you ask me, I'd offer at least 4 transfers between races, just because of the sheer magnitude of roster changes, the different teams in each race, the inclement weather, our collective ineptitude at putting together decent teams and, of course, the life threatening, season ending or career ending crashes these riders are exposed to in these races... We do have to protect our riders, you know?...  4

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Thanks to Enrique for taking up the fight for me. My feeling about the total number of starters in all classics and the number who ride in most events was about as borne out by his spreadsheet. I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren't household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.

However, I also want to thank Dave Atkinson for his comments acknowledging he understands the issues.

Without a purist form of the classics I can see it is going to be difficult to pick a trade number that keeps both the players who prefer to play purist and the players who prefer to play standard happy.

Looking forward to seeing the launch email to see what races there are and how it all hangs together.

Avatar
Joelsim [1975 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Nix wrote:

I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren't household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.

That's the whole basis of a fantasy league isn't it? Skill and knowledge rather than just luck, although I appreciate there will always be an element of the latter.

Avatar
enrique [2421 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Ok, I'm going to up the ante on getting the transfers between races up to 4 or more...  4 in a particularly sneaky way...  4 This may backfire of course (  4 )... but here goes... How are you going to load the teams? Are you going to load every rider on every team?  39 All of them before the competition starts? A lot of the 3.0 riders will be coming from the smaller teams... Out of curiousity, have all the invites been made and accepted to the 'Cobbled races'? If anyone knows what teams are going to which races, I'd love to know!  1 Anyways, here's another statistic to shore up support for more transfers:

Of the 334 riders that participated in the 'Cobbled races' - OML, KBK, E3, GW, FLA, and PRB -

95 riders rode only 1 race
49 riders rode 2 races
52 rode 3 races
73 rode 4 races
49 rode 5 races
43 rode all 6 races

The numbers would probably be even more (!) astounding if I included the teams and riders that went to San Remo and the Ardennes (  13 )! I wish I had the time to do those (!) too! But, the numbers are really (!) quite impressive, aren't they?  3 I think we deserve at least 4 transfers between races and a complete reboot before the Ardennes!  1 Have I said that before? We must (!) offer 4 or more transfers!  4 Otherwise we also risk teams becoming too much like each other, too, with people playing it safe trying to have riders that will stay and produce throught the whole competition!  1 I have nothing else to do, I know...  4 I think I'll take a break now...  1 Thanks for the mention, Nix...

Avatar
Nix [72 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Joelsim wrote:
Nix wrote:

I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren't household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.

That's the whole basis of a fantasy league isn't it? Skill and knowledge rather than just luck, although I appreciate there will always be an element of the latter.

As someone who has studied stats I can tell you the more choices you make in a game the less luck is a factor. For example you make 1 big bet at roulette you might get lucky and win, but if you make 1,000s of small bets you will certainly loose. So luck is a much bigger factor in the purist game than a game with unlimited trades. That's why I never play purist. You need more skill and knowledge to finish top 10 in unlimited trades than to finish top 10 in purist.

Like your numbers Enrique.

Pages