PDA

View Full Version : KCBS TOY Calculations


MoKanMeathead
12-26-2007, 01:30 PM
What are your thoughts on the new KCBS Team of the Year Calculations?

Every team at a contest will receive points, even the last place team. Additionally, every team participating in a contest will be awarded bonus points based on the number of teams at an event, up to a maximum of 100. There are no double and triple points, only the bonus points based on the number teams competing at each event. While teams will still be rewarded for doing well in large contests, this system helps to bridge the gap between the smaller and larger events, rewarding teams for their consistency on the competition circuit regardless of event size.

The following is a breakdown of the points awarded at each event to each placement. Take for example the third place overall finisher at a 47-team event. The team will receive 200 points plus 47 bonus points based on the number of teams competing, for a total of 247.


1st---250
2nd---225
3rd---200
4th---175
5th---150
6th---140
7th---130
8th---120
9th---110
10th--100
11th--95
12th--90
13th--85
14th--80
15th--75
16th--70
17th--65
18th--60
19th--50
20th--45
21st--40
22nd--35
23rd--30
24th and down--25

Plowboy
12-26-2007, 02:55 PM
Thanks for posting this Wayne. Hadn't seen this yet. I think its a good step forward. Would like to see it capped at 5 contests like the current system. A cap means that everyone has a fighting chance, not just those that do 42 contests in a year.

I wonder if it will change the end result. Will the top 10 be the same with both old and new systems. Would be good if KCBS could show how the new system would have changed things for 2007.

MoKanMeathead
12-26-2007, 03:37 PM
The new system look to be capped at 10 contests. It would be interesting to see how this would have worked out for 2007 but that would be a huge task to back a calculate.

ThomEmery
12-26-2007, 05:55 PM
We redid the CBBQA ToY this year
Top 50% Score Points
Points are based on number of teams
43 teams 43 points for the GC

Plowboy
12-26-2007, 06:10 PM
Thom, do you have to be a member of the CBBQA to get points?

ThomEmery
12-26-2007, 06:20 PM
Yes You cant win the contest without being a member
But a non member would count in the example of 43 teams
just not score points for themselves
Some events charge $200 for CBBQA members $236 with out and buy you a new membership

Almost everyone that cooks more than one event a year is a member here

Contest is based on your best 5 scores

Merl
12-26-2007, 07:20 PM
The Board was informed that there was little change if we used 10 or 5 scores. I would use 5 for the categories. The Board felt that TOY and the Categories were for those who compete. While I agree the chance of a team whom only competes 5 times a year against those who cook 20 a year are remote, I always enjoy seeing the underdog have a chance. I wanted to preseve that chance for the little guy.


But this is the our system for 08.
Yours in Q
Merl Whitebook

MilitantSquatter
12-26-2007, 07:48 PM
I'm trying to digest the math a bit... Is this correct ?

A team that places 22nd out of 25 teams gets 25 points + 22 points = 47 points total.
A team that places 44th out of 50 teams gets 25 points + 50 points = 75 points total.
A team that places 88th out of 100 gets 25 points + 100 points = 125 points total


Merl - Thanks for your work. Seems like you have a good pulse of whats out there.

ThomEmery
12-26-2007, 07:57 PM
I'm trying to digest the math a bit...

Is this correct ?

A team that places 44th out of 50 teams gets 44 points.
A team that places 22nd out of 25 teams gets 22 points
A team that places 88th out of 100 gets 88 points ??


I am not sure which system your talking about
Sorry if you were talking the other
CBBQA if your 20th at a 55 team Cook Off
you get 55 minus 20 is 35 points

say your 13 at a 26 team C/O
You get 13 points

MilitantSquatter
12-26-2007, 08:22 PM
Thanks Tom but I was referring to KCBS new system. I'm sure it will all work OK, but seems odd in some ways to grant any points to truly poor performances ... Why get any ?

I would really be interested in finding out more about the average, median, mode # of contests per team to see how that stacks up vs. the 5 or 10 contests needed to qualify for TOY.

Changing to 10 may not change the top teams but it does narrow the field considerably to at least even be acknowledged or provide insight for a team on where they stand overall. I know it's not Merl's words " for those who compete" but I'm just curious how they arrived at 10 as the new minimum #.

To make any educated decision, I would hope the BOD really has their pulse on how many the average KCBS team does rather than cater to the select who push 15-30 a year. Then the # could be re-evaluated each year based on previous year metrics on avg. participation by the core KCBS team. The best teams stand out either way but at least more get some idea of where they are in the bigger picture.

Yakfishingfool
12-26-2007, 08:46 PM
As I think we have seen in the past people like to see their names on rankings. If this is a "hard core" only competition award system, seems the backyard, occasional competitor is out of the loop, out of the loop and make people feel less inclined to be interested and then the relativity of the KCBS to the backyard, occasional competitor, rapidly declines. we should know what happens when an organization ceases to be relative to the masses of it members. Don't ask how I know. But any new system should work to expand recognition and not to exclude more. Scott

MilitantSquatter
12-26-2007, 08:49 PM
As I think we have seen in the past people like to see their names on rankings. If this is a "hard core" only competition award system, seems the backyard, occasional competitor is out of the loop, out of the loop and make people feel less inclined to be interested and then the relativity of the KCBS to the backyard, occasional competitor, rapidly declines. we should know what happens when an organization ceases to be relative to the masses of it members. Don't ask how I know. But any new system should work to expand recognition and not to exclude more. Scott


Well said Scott. That's what I was trying to say.

Plowboy
12-26-2007, 09:35 PM
I'm trying to digest the math a bit... Is this correct ?

A team that places 22nd out of 25 teams gets 25 points + 22 points = 47 points total.
A team that places 44th out of 50 teams gets 25 points + 50 points = 75 points total.
A team that places 88th out of 100 gets 25 points + 100 points = 125 points total


Merl - Thanks for your work. Seems like you have a good pulse of whats out there.

If your math is correct, it seems like this system is more about large contests than even the number of contests you attend. If I attend the Royal and GAB, that gives me about 200 just in attendance points. Kinda hard to beat if stick mainly to the NE, for example.

<Sorry, I've edited this as I didn't see the cap was 100 for attendance points.>

Still, the system does add more weight than ever to bigger contests. That's probably a good thing. The top end reward was 50 teams. Now you get more points for competing in up to 100 teams. We'll have over 360 points next year in just 4 of our contests.

MilitantSquatter
12-26-2007, 09:39 PM
If your math is correct, it seems like this system is more about large contests than even the number of contests you attend. If I attend the Royal and GAB, that gives me about 800 just in attendance points. Kinda hard to beat if stick mainly to the NE, for example.


Todd - If I read Wayne's post correctly, for either of these two contests (assuming a min of 100 teams for GAB) attendance points are capped at 100.

So a last place finish at a 100+ team (or 500 is AR Open is KCBS sanctioned) event would score 125 (100+25) which using these same rules is equal to a team placing 12th at a 35 team contest (90+35). That seems very weird but admittedly the exception to the rule so to speak.

Plowboy
12-26-2007, 09:48 PM
Yup, saw my mistake. This is taking a bit to digest.

I can say that I would have liked to have had this system in place in 2007... for totally selfish reasons. We had ten top 10 pork calls (well, 9 I guess... one was a non sanctioned state championship) out of 13 contests where pork was a category. Only half of our calls were top 5. So we did well from a TOY stand point, but not well enough. Sure would have liked a few points in the 6's, 7's, and 8's that we got.

ique
12-27-2007, 06:45 AM
I hear what you are saying, but, is the point of TOY to encourage teams to participate and expand recognition? That sounds like T-Ball. I think the TOY calculus should have one and only one objective: determine the best performing team for the calendar year.

That said, I'm not a big fan of the 10 contest requirement. I think it is impressive for a team to put up big scores with just a few contests. A few years ago HomeBBQ (Kevin) placed in the top 10 overall of KCBS cooking only 5 kcbs contests total. I found that more impressive than some of the teams in front of him that had 5 higher scores but cooked 30+ contests to achieve that.

Kudos to KCBS though to make the effort to try and improve the system


As I think we have seen in the past people like to see their names on rankings. If this is a "hard core" only competition award system, seems the backyard, occasional competitor is out of the loop, out of the loop and make people feel less inclined to be interested and then the relativity of the KCBS to the backyard, occasional competitor, rapidly declines. we should know what happens when an organization ceases to be relative to the masses of it members. Don't ask how I know. But any new system should work to expand recognition and not to exclude more. Scott

acorette
12-27-2007, 08:47 AM
If this is a "hard core" only competition award system, seems the backyard, occasional competitor is out of the loop, out of the loop and make people feel less inclined to be interested and then the relativity of the KCBS to the backyard, occasional competitor, rapidly declines. we should know what happens when an organization ceases to be relative to the masses of it members. Don't ask how I know. But any new system should work to expand recognition and not to exclude more. Scott

Amen Brother!

This system seems skewed, too... There will be "sweet spots" and "dead spots" showing up in the possible combinations of # teams and place in the comp... We will need to target comps with as many teams as possible as long as there aren't more than 100 teams. After 100 teams, the comp size "adder" loses value. Look at some examples...

10th place in a 25 team comp = 125 points = DEAD LAST in a 100 team comp.

How about: 2nd place at a 25 team comp = 5 place at a 500 team comp?

Seems like people who voted on this system may not have looked very closely at the math first....

Just my $0.02.

Yakfishingfool
12-27-2007, 09:04 AM
Ique makes a valid point. Is TOY competition a friendly backyard smoker competition or
a balls to the wall, we want extreme competition? Going to be tough to cater to both those people/teams. Should an occasional backyard competitor expect to get TOY rnakings?? Shouldn't the same team be happy with a 123rd place ranking despite despite 3 competitions in which they finished in the top five? That makes them pretty strong in those competitions but what about the team that did 20 comp's and finished in the top ten for over half? What about us nor'easters that find going to the many mid-west comp's a near impossibility due to distance, weather, etc. We may only get 5-6 comps we can attend up in this area.. Not at all like the mid-west/south.

What about a regional TOY, then the top 5-10 of each region is compared to their counter part regionally and a national TOY is announced. Seems to get more people involved, seems to account for regional variations in competition loads, etc. Just ideas being tossed out. Good topic. Scott

Plowboy
12-27-2007, 09:13 AM
Amen Brother!

This system seems skewed, too... There will be "sweet spots" and "dead spots" showing up in the possible combinations of # teams and place in the comp... We will need to target comps with as many teams as possible as long as there aren't more than 100 teams. After 100 teams, the comp size "adder" loses value. Look at some examples...

10th place in a 25 team comp = 125 points = DEAD LAST in a 100 team comp.

How about: 2nd place at a 25 team comp = 5 place at a 500 team comp?

Seems like people who voted on this system may not have looked very closely at the math first....

Just my $0.02.

I don't know if there is a perfect system. There were holes in the former system as there will be holes in this one.

Old System

1st place @ 50 team = 1st place @ 500 team
1st place @ 24 team < 3rd place @ 25 team

These "dead spots" are probably going to occur in any system. I'm still trying to understand the complete big picture of where this system takes us. I think it encourages participation at larger contests. Contestants get incremental points added whenever a single team enters the contest instead of the current system where you have milestones before the next point multiplier. I think the new system does reward teams who have access to larger contests. Thus, in its own way may encourage growth. Dunno. A lot to digest.

I agree with IQue on 5 contest to 10 contest change. Mean Dean's placed in top 10 in Brisket a couple years ago with only 6 contests that year. However, I'm guessing that KCBS expanded to 10 contests to help break some ties. For teams that do cook a couple dozen contests or more, they are going to get their fair share of top 5's at triple point contests (current system). It is not unrealistic for a Buffalo's BBQ to walk in at the end of the year with five 1st place finishes in brisket. Just a guess at some of the reasons why they expanded it.

But let's face it, the great majority of us don't do it for the TOY points. If all of a sudden eel becomes the fifth KCBS category, THEN I'm going to worry.

Plowboy
12-27-2007, 09:15 AM
What about a regional TOY, then the top 5-10 of each region is compared to their counter part regionally and a national TOY is announced. Seems to get more people involved, seems to account for regional variations in competition loads, etc. Just ideas being tossed out. Good topic. Scott


BBQ Conference System :wink:

(Do I smell playoffs?)

Ford
12-27-2007, 09:19 AM
Amen Brother!

This system seems skewed, too... There will be "sweet spots" and "dead spots" showing up in the possible combinations of # teams and place in the comp... We will need to target comps with as many teams as possible as long as there aren't more than 100 teams. After 100 teams, the comp size "adder" loses value. Look at some examples...

10th place in a 25 team comp = 125 points = DEAD LAST in a 100 team comp.

How about: 2nd place at a 25 team comp = 5 place at a 500 team comp?

Seems like people who voted on this system may not have looked very closely at the math first....

Just my $0.02.
How about a team enters 10 contests with 100 teams and finihses DAL in all of them. They still have 1250 points. Another team say on the east coast does 3 comps and wins all but with only 30 bonus points each and they have 840 points. So 10 DAL's is better than 3 GC's. And yes I know that's the extreme buy when they put in the old system having 2 teams with 5 - 15 point wins was unheard of.

I agree people looked at breaking the first place ties and then said lets make sure we include everybody but we don't want to make it hard to maintain so after 23rd place, everybody gets the same. After all anybody serious will cook at least 10 comps.

Well just maybe some people cook less and like to see their success rewarded. Like I said on another board I think this is an example of looking after the big guys and not thinking about the little guys.

Anybody else here remember looking at the TOY to see their name for the first time because they finally got a top 5 finish in a category or overall? Anybody remember the first time they saw their name in all 5? I do but under this new system I no longer care about seeing it. 3 GC's can count for less than 10 DAL's.

butts a fire
12-27-2007, 09:41 AM
After reading all of this I think it is a step in a good direction there is one tweak I would make though in the interest of fairness As Ford pointed out 3 gc's in small constest would be worth less than 10 DALs in large contests the fix for this would be easy all you have to do is have the multiplier deminish for each position down that way poor finishes at large contests are not rewarded more than good finishes at small contests. Using Fords example the team with 3 gc's would still get the same # of points but the last place team would only end up with 250. To use the AR as an example you would have to finish in the top 100 to get any bonus points I think it is fair to say that if you finish anywhere inside the top 100 at the AR you deserve some bonus points but if you finish DAL you don't. To me this makes more since all the way around it still rewards teams more for good finishes at larger contests but does not reward teams for just competing in them. I personally only compete in 4 to 5 contests a year so I do not have a stake in the TOY but I would not feel good about my team finishing ahead of a team that is winning some where else simply because I had access to larger contests.

lunchlady
12-27-2007, 01:34 PM
I guess I'm still for using ACTUAL points scored by a team at a contest to determine the TOY standings.

I do understand that coming in third overall at a 100 team contest should maybe count more than coming in third overall at a 25 team contest, but these other systems still have issues as well.

Kudos to KCBS for trying though.

The Pickled Pig
12-29-2007, 08:58 AM
You can test an approximation of the new scoring sytem as well as create your own unique ranking system and test it against 2007 data here (http://www.thepickledpig.com/DIYrankings.cfm).

Have fun and let me know if you have any problems with the rankings engine.

Muzzlebrake
12-29-2007, 11:04 AM
I think the KCBS should adopt the BCS system
:twisted:
:biggrin:

Plowboy
12-29-2007, 11:53 AM
The new system look to be capped at 10 contests. It would be interesting to see how this would have worked out for 2007 but that would be a huge task to back a calculate.

You can test an approximation of the new scoring sytem as well as create your own unique ranking system and test it against 2007 data here (http://www.thepickledpig.com/DIYrankings.cfm).

Have fun and let me know if you have any problems with the rankings engine.

Not so huge after all. :biggrin:

63rd under the new system. Nice!

smoke-n-my-i's
12-29-2007, 11:56 AM
As I think we have seen in the past people like to see their names on rankings. If this is a "hard core" only competition award system, seems the backyard, occasional competitor is out of the loop, out of the loop and make people feel less inclined to be interested and then the relativity of the KCBS to the backyard, occasional competitor, rapidly declines. we should know what happens when an organization ceases to be relative to the masses of it members. Don't ask how I know. But any new system should work to expand recognition and not to exclude more. Scott

I see what you are saying here.... Although it is concidered professional competition, and not backyard, I feel like I am not as professional as some. I was only able to make 2 competitions this last year. So, therefore, since I don't compete in say, 25 so more comps a year, and did not make any categories in the top 10, I have no points for last year. I did the year before....

This sounds like it will give the ones like myself that could not make it to "all" of the competitions because of work, etc., a little more chance of a little bit of a chance to at least let others know we are at least trying to compete against the "big boys".

Maybe when I retire, get rich, have the large motor home, pull behind automatic cooker, I too will be able to make it to "ALL" of the comps.... then I can be one of the "big boys" and will be able to look down at the "little boys" that are working for a living, and can't make it to but only a couple of competitions and remember what it was like and be able to walk up to one and say, "Welcome to the circuit. I hope you enjoy it and will continue to see me more....... what can I do to help you enjoy your experience?"

I have been to a few comps, and walked around like most of us do and try to introduce myself... wow... was I shocked at a few of the "big boys" that in my opinion only took a moment to just say hi, and I felt the vibes of "hurry up and get outta here"....... :eek:

They need to look back at the time when they started out..... and just remember...

No, I do not want your secrets, I am only trying to be friendly, and meet my competition....

Enjoy your time, I do .....

Ford
01-21-2008, 09:02 AM
I think that the new system is really going to make significant changes in peoples schedules. In previous years those triple points contests drew all the big names. But now a GC at a little old 20 team East Coast contest gets 270 points for GC. You have to finish 2nd at a 50 team contest to do better than that or 4th at a 100 team contest. Why would Tuffy and others drive hundreds of miles when they could stay close to home. So long as it's a qualifier the number of teams is no longer nearly as important.

Now in IL, WI and IA there are lots of 30-50 team contests and 25 is still the number for the Royal qualifier but why would Quau go way south to compete with all the big names when he can go 100 miles to WI or IA and compete.

Bottom line is nobody gets 10 GC's right now so the more GC/RC you can bank at any size contest the better your chances at TOY.

Jorge
01-21-2008, 09:56 AM
Now in IL, WI and IA there are lots of 30-50 team contests and 25 is still the number for the Royal qualifier but why would Quau go way south to compete with all the big names when he can go 100 miles to WI or IA and compete.



$$$$:wink:

Ford
01-21-2008, 10:01 AM
$$$$:wink:
I sitll think the 50K purses will draw but if GC is 5K and you can go to one that's 500 miles closer that pays 3K for GC you will sure think about it. Especially if you think you have a better chance of winning.

DawgPhan
01-22-2008, 09:10 AM
I sent a letter to the BOD on TOY and the possibility that a team with 10 DAL's could finish ahead of a team with 3 GC's. So far I have not received a writtent reply but I did hear that it was discussed at the BOD meeting and the comment was TOY was for the big guys not the little guys. Sounds like who cares about you guys anyway. Personally I think this is just more of the MMA thinking with NASCAR like dreams. Next year I won't care what TOY results are unless I get real lucky this year with my 7 or 8 contests. I consider it a real honor for a team that cooked 5 contests to finish tied for 39th in chicken out of all the teams that compete. But points for DAL the same as for 24th place?????

I moved this over here because I thought that it was a good comment and wanted to comment on it, but didnt want to derail the other thread.

Before the TOY program was announce Troy emailed me about it and what I thought about it. We exchanged some emails and I expressed some opinions about it and whatnot...the main point being that it was devaluing the GC by giving out so many points...His reply was that the TOY is really about finding the #1 team. It is only concerned with that top spot and does a good job of determining that top spot, but it doesnt work well from 2-1600...but it wasnt built to.

DawgPhan
01-22-2008, 10:15 AM
Oh and one other thing about the new TOY program...unless they get the team ID thing worked out very quickly they wont have the 2008 TOY done before the banquet in 2010 much less being updated in real time. I cant imagine the pain in the butt that it is going to be without the team ID program to award points for all of the big contests like Royal, GAB, and those other 100+ team events. I certianly wouldnt want to do it...

slat
01-24-2008, 03:48 PM
I think the system needs to be worked on. I think you could give out 500 points to the first place team then deduct 25 for every place after through 6th. Then 7th-27th would be seperated by 10 points. 28th-41st by 5 points. 42nd-76th by 2 points. 77th-100th by 1 point.
After that just one point.
Bonus points should be for number of teams less one point for every place you finish below first. Can keep the cap at 100 points.