Fantasy Directeur Sportif Challenge

alright, 19 WT teams with say
alright, 19 WT teams with say 28 riders each gives a pool of 532 riders in total. In the preseason spreadsheet there are 1394, worth 9644.8 points in total.
There are 10 riders worth 30 or more, 40 worth 20-30, 261 worth 10-20.

So if we say 15 teams, each with 3 star riders worth 20+ points, and 10-12 worth 10-20. with another 15 or so under 10, then the 300 points is a little generous, say 280 points to pull things down, giving a total of 4200 points used.
If we say each team must have say 3 neo pros that brings us to 30 riders per team. Careful selection of non WT riders will help too because some of the Pro level teams like Caja, Netapp etc are getting invites and turning in good performances, expanding the available pool of riders.

At most I reckon you could have 20 teams, but you’d need to pull the points down, and someone would not have 3 ‘top’ level rider over 30 points, so 15 seems fair, with maybe a random pick of one of the highest value ‘star’ riders when you sign up to avoid argument, and challenge you to build a team round that high cost rider.

My current team has 1 of those 30 point + riders, 5 at 20-30, 7 at 10-20 and just 5 at 3 points only and I’m pretty happy with the breakdown. The only observation is that sprinters are pricier ‘cos these values come from the Fantasy game, not the WT points. If I picked again, I’d have a couple more 3 pointers to afford another well known sprinter. All my riders are WT, and I have a little overlap with all 3 other teams.

The other observation is that we don’t pick the actual riders in each race, so maybe it would be an idea to have 20 teams, each allowed 450 points, and 60 riders. That would use 1200 of the riders and hopefully each team would get 9 in each race, being required to declare up front. 450 points is 30 riders at 300, 30 for 150 more, averaging 5 per rider.
To sort out who gets which riders, there are loads of ways. The fairest I can think of so far is everyone is assigned a top rider. You then have a pot of ‘money’ and can bid for the next 5 riders. Winning bid signs. Then new pot of money for next 5 and so on. Giving 12 rounds of drafts in total. Maybe that’s too many, maybe 10 riders per draft for 6 rounds, or 12 for 5. First rider assigned avoids the inevitable bidding wars for Sagan or Wiggins or Cav. Or do bidding for riders over 10, and neo pros only, riders 3-10 in value sign for first offer after the bidding rounds complete.

Thoughts?

I think what you would find
I think what you would find then is you are making it too restrictive, for example we’ve picked teams our teams with no other people picking and I still don’t have a full team for P-N, so I think if you tried to employ the 150 credit rule it wouldn’t work. By all means a credit limit on the overall to a degree (probably 700 id say, see why further down), as if you look at our teams, we don’t have an awful lot of stars, but we do have a fair amount of 3 credit riders, and then when you think 10 teams, thats alot of 3 credit riders gone, without there being much choice.

Your talking very similar to the game I play on PROFSL, basically you have a budget and contracts. So its a bidding draft, which means you can stop as high as you want to go, and contracts can role over 2/3 years spreading cost out etc. So thats where trying to employ other limits when values are already set becomes very difficult. I think if you are using set values and say you couldn’t go over 700 credits, so you effectively couldn’t go out and have 30 guys of 25 credits it would work anyway as over 10/12 teams you would get a big enough spread of riders that people would think, oh Cancellara has gone (25 credits) your next pick, i want a classic guy who finishes high, so you go Santambrogio (8 credits) so it would all work out anyway

It depends what races on the
It depends what races on the actual calender you were using, as to what riders you deem valuable. The more races the more teams. But id say possibly 10-12 is about right to make it somewhat competitive. But doing a draft means you wouldn’t be credit limited

Yeah, no poaching, Talansky
Yeah, no poaching, Talansky signed with me this season 😛

Just looking over my spreadsheet, and after an encouraging start, there’s a huge hole with the early classics where I just have one or two riders entered per race. Seems like not many of the guys I picked for Classics are doing the early ones.

Then I hit Paris Nice, and Tireno and 22 out of 27 are in there.

Seems I may have misjudged how this part of the year works with the stage races and the one days. Having said that I’ve never really bothered with any races before April/May time, so it’s all learning this year.

Next year, I think I need to review my balance of GC vs sprinters. Kittel, Cav and Appollonio aren’t enough to cover the range of races and finishes. GC riders may be better for WT over the year, but my team goals are less aligned with WT points and more crowd pleasing ones and top 20 in GC doesn’t float that many boats compared to a Sagan salute.

Maybe need to be haunting the u23 races and continental teams looking for the next fast gun.