Sandbag chat is worse than office football pool chat, ATMO.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:25 AM Brad Davidson via OBRA
wrote:
> Came across this relevant bit of frivolity on IG today:
>
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BpDa6gplRKT
>
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
Came across this relevant bit of frivolity on IG today:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BpDa6gplRKT
-Brad
crossresults.com kind of does this, though I'm not sure how they're
scraping or importing OBRA's data. They estimate USAC upgrade points for a
given race but they don't provide a season/category total.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:27 PM Matt Ritzow via OBRA
wrote:
> Brad,
> How difficult do you think it would be for OBRA to implement a formula
> like USAC uses to rank riders? It is based on who you beat and who you
> lose to and also the number of riders/quality of field. This would be
> hugely useful as OBRA and USAC as they recognize each other and accept each
> others results for upgrades. It would be HUGE for CX race promoters in
> making a fair and easy to implement call up list. A side benefit would be a
> much more legit way to determine BAR standing within disciplines.
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:44 AM Brad Davidson via OBRA <
> obra@list.obra.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback! Anyone checking today might
>> have seen some odd results as I hacked the code into shape. I've done some
>> fairly major refactoring of the output and score calculations; as a result
>> the page now displays all points earned (as well as detected
>> upgrades/downgrades) going back to 2014. Total points for each race are now
>> calculated on a rolling 1-year basis, as opposed to a fixed date 1 year in
>> the past. This should help shine some light on folks that should have been
>> eligible for an upgrade at some point in the past.
>>
>> It's also revealed some interesting behavior in that I see some folks
>> testing the water in a higher category before returning back to easier
>> prey. Previously, any foray into a higher category would bump you into that
>> field permanently. You may now go back down to your previous field without
>> penalty, as long as you have not *ever* earned any upgrade points. I'm not
>> sure what the official OBRA stance is on this sort of thing, but that's how
>> I'm handling it.
>>
>> Do not spindle, fold or mutilate. Many Bothans died to bring you this
>> information. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead.
>>
>> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>>
>> -Brad
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:18 PM Brad Davidson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Welcome to another edition of Unofficial Cyclocross Upgrades, where
>>> everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. We've had three really
>>> big races since the last round of official upgrades took effect. If you
>>> want to check to see what my highly trained cloud-based AI machine learning
>>> model thinks of things, clickly clicky here:
>>>
>>> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>>>
>>> Cyclocross legends tell of a time long ago when folks kept track of
>>> their own points and voluntarily moved themselves out of lower categories
>>> when they started winning too much. We even had names for people that
>>> didn't do that. I'm not saying anyone has to, but if the following folks
>>> feel like moving up, they've got the points to support it:
>>>
>>> Michael Gallagher: 2 -> 1 (39)
>>> Ian Brown: 2 -> 1 (49)
>>> Madeline Stover: 3 -> 2 (40)
>>> Patrick Reedy: 3 -> 2 (36)
>>> Terry Hamness: 3 -> 2 (33)
>>> David Marchi: 3 -> 2 (30)
>>> Andrew Usher: 3 -> 2 (30)
>>> Steve C Williams: 3 -> 2 (27)
>>> Adam Kachman: 3 -> 2 (21)
>>> Mark Goodman: 3 -> 2 (20)
>>> Brady Cowing: 4 -> 3 (51)
>>> Rob Shatting: 4 -> 3 (32)
>>> Drew Hankins: 4 -> 3 (27)
>>> Andre Vogs: 4 -> 3 (27)
>>> Benjamin Lomas: 4 -> 3 (23)
>>> Joel West: 4 -> 3 (23)
>>> Joshua Boelter: 4 -> 3 (22)
>>> Kaeli Laxson: 5 -> 4 (28)
>>> Tim Sherry: 5 -> 4 (27)
>>> Justin Smith: 5 -> 4 (21)
>>>
>>> Lots of love to Candi, Jen, and all the other awesome OBRA staff that
>>> take the time to manually score and track all these things so that I can
>>> let my robots mangle the data.
>>>
>>> -Brad
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Ritzow
> General Manager/Partner Owner
> Bicycle Way of Life Inc.
> 556 Charnelton St.
> Eugene, Or. 97401
> 541-393-0147
> 541-344-4105
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
Yes. This please. No need to have 250 riders on course at 1:10.
Yeah, they don't scrape anything; they require people to manually input (or
copy/paste) the data into a spreadsheet they provide, and then upload it.
You can see the uploader's name on the race detail page. I'm not sure if
they use the USAC Race Quality formula or their own thing. I like some of
the extra stuff they do too, like showing race conditions, nemeses, how
often you've beat someone and by how much, etc. They just don't have all
the data.
-Brad
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM Tony Thayer wrote:
> crossresults.com kind of does this, though I'm not sure how they're
> scraping or importing OBRA's data. They estimate USAC upgrade points for a
> given race but they don't provide a season/category total.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:27 PM Matt Ritzow via OBRA
> wrote:
>
>> Brad,
>> How difficult do you think it would be for OBRA to implement a formula
>> like USAC uses to rank riders? It is based on who you beat and who you
>> lose to and also the number of riders/quality of field. This would be
>> hugely useful as OBRA and USAC as they recognize each other and accept each
>> others results for upgrades. It would be HUGE for CX race promoters in
>> making a fair and easy to implement call up list. A side benefit would be a
>> much more legit way to determine BAR standing within disciplines.
>> Matt
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:44 AM Brad Davidson via OBRA <
>> obra@list.obra.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback! Anyone checking today might
>>> have seen some odd results as I hacked the code into shape. I've done some
>>> fairly major refactoring of the output and score calculations; as a result
>>> the page now displays all points earned (as well as detected
>>> upgrades/downgrades) going back to 2014. Total points for each race are now
>>> calculated on a rolling 1-year basis, as opposed to a fixed date 1 year in
>>> the past. This should help shine some light on folks that should have been
>>> eligible for an upgrade at some point in the past.
>>>
>>> It's also revealed some interesting behavior in that I see some folks
>>> testing the water in a higher category before returning back to easier
>>> prey. Previously, any foray into a higher category would bump you into that
>>> field permanently. You may now go back down to your previous field without
>>> penalty, as long as you have not *ever* earned any upgrade points. I'm not
>>> sure what the official OBRA stance is on this sort of thing, but that's how
>>> I'm handling it.
>>>
>>> Do not spindle, fold or mutilate. Many Bothans died to bring you this
>>> information. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead.
>>>
>>> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>>>
>>> -Brad
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:18 PM Brad Davidson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to another edition of Unofficial Cyclocross Upgrades, where
>>>> everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. We've had three really
>>>> big races since the last round of official upgrades took effect. If you
>>>> want to check to see what my highly trained cloud-based AI machine learning
>>>> model thinks of things, clickly clicky here:
>>>>
>>>> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>>>>
>>>> Cyclocross legends tell of a time long ago when folks kept track of
>>>> their own points and voluntarily moved themselves out of lower categories
>>>> when they started winning too much. We even had names for people that
>>>> didn't do that. I'm not saying anyone has to, but if the following folks
>>>> feel like moving up, they've got the points to support it:
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gallagher: 2 -> 1 (39)
>>>> Ian Brown: 2 -> 1 (49)
>>>> Madeline Stover: 3 -> 2 (40)
>>>> Patrick Reedy: 3 -> 2 (36)
>>>> Terry Hamness: 3 -> 2 (33)
>>>> David Marchi: 3 -> 2 (30)
>>>> Andrew Usher: 3 -> 2 (30)
>>>> Steve C Williams: 3 -> 2 (27)
>>>> Adam Kachman: 3 -> 2 (21)
>>>> Mark Goodman: 3 -> 2 (20)
>>>> Brady Cowing: 4 -> 3 (51)
>>>> Rob Shatting: 4 -> 3 (32)
>>>> Drew Hankins: 4 -> 3 (27)
>>>> Andre Vogs: 4 -> 3 (27)
>>>> Benjamin Lomas: 4 -> 3 (23)
>>>> Joel West: 4 -> 3 (23)
>>>> Joshua Boelter: 4 -> 3 (22)
>>>> Kaeli Laxson: 5 -> 4 (28)
>>>> Tim Sherry: 5 -> 4 (27)
>>>> Justin Smith: 5 -> 4 (21)
>>>>
>>>> Lots of love to Candi, Jen, and all the other awesome OBRA staff that
>>>> take the time to manually score and track all these things so that I can
>>>> let my robots mangle the data.
>>>>
>>>> -Brad
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Ritzow
>> General Manager/Partner Owner
>> Bicycle Way of Life Inc.
>> 556 Charnelton St.
>> Eugene, Or. 97401
>> 541-393-0147
>> 541-344-4105
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>
Brad,
How difficult do you think it would be for OBRA to implement a formula like
USAC uses to rank riders? It is based on who you beat and who you lose to
and also the number of riders/quality of field. This would be hugely
useful as OBRA and USAC as they recognize each other and accept each others
results for upgrades. It would be HUGE for CX race promoters in making a
fair and easy to implement call up list. A side benefit would be a much
more legit way to determine BAR standing within disciplines.
Matt
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:44 AM Brad Davidson via OBRA
wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback! Anyone checking today might
> have seen some odd results as I hacked the code into shape. I've done some
> fairly major refactoring of the output and score calculations; as a result
> the page now displays all points earned (as well as detected
> upgrades/downgrades) going back to 2014. Total points for each race are now
> calculated on a rolling 1-year basis, as opposed to a fixed date 1 year in
> the past. This should help shine some light on folks that should have been
> eligible for an upgrade at some point in the past.
>
> It's also revealed some interesting behavior in that I see some folks
> testing the water in a higher category before returning back to easier
> prey. Previously, any foray into a higher category would bump you into that
> field permanently. You may now go back down to your previous field without
> penalty, as long as you have not *ever* earned any upgrade points. I'm not
> sure what the official OBRA stance is on this sort of thing, but that's how
> I'm handling it.
>
> Do not spindle, fold or mutilate. Many Bothans died to bring you this
> information. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead.
>
> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>
> -Brad
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:18 PM Brad Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> Welcome to another edition of Unofficial Cyclocross Upgrades, where
>> everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. We've had three really
>> big races since the last round of official upgrades took effect. If you
>> want to check to see what my highly trained cloud-based AI machine learning
>> model thinks of things, clickly clicky here:
>>
>> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>>
>> Cyclocross legends tell of a time long ago when folks kept track of their
>> own points and voluntarily moved themselves out of lower categories when
>> they started winning too much. We even had names for people that didn't do
>> that. I'm not saying anyone has to, but if the following folks feel like
>> moving up, they've got the points to support it:
>>
>> Michael Gallagher: 2 -> 1 (39)
>> Ian Brown: 2 -> 1 (49)
>> Madeline Stover: 3 -> 2 (40)
>> Patrick Reedy: 3 -> 2 (36)
>> Terry Hamness: 3 -> 2 (33)
>> David Marchi: 3 -> 2 (30)
>> Andrew Usher: 3 -> 2 (30)
>> Steve C Williams: 3 -> 2 (27)
>> Adam Kachman: 3 -> 2 (21)
>> Mark Goodman: 3 -> 2 (20)
>> Brady Cowing: 4 -> 3 (51)
>> Rob Shatting: 4 -> 3 (32)
>> Drew Hankins: 4 -> 3 (27)
>> Andre Vogs: 4 -> 3 (27)
>> Benjamin Lomas: 4 -> 3 (23)
>> Joel West: 4 -> 3 (23)
>> Joshua Boelter: 4 -> 3 (22)
>> Kaeli Laxson: 5 -> 4 (28)
>> Tim Sherry: 5 -> 4 (27)
>> Justin Smith: 5 -> 4 (21)
>>
>> Lots of love to Candi, Jen, and all the other awesome OBRA staff that
>> take the time to manually score and track all these things so that I can
>> let my robots mangle the data.
>>
>> -Brad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
--
Matt Ritzow
General Manager/Partner Owner
Bicycle Way of Life Inc.
556 Charnelton St.
Eugene, Or. 97401
541-393-0147
541-344-4105
I don't know shit about algorithms but this is rad and thanks for putting the energy into it!
What I find interesting is the 5 instances (which, full sand bagging disclosure, includes me) where guys from the 2/3 race were upgraded to a Cat 1 despite never even racing a 1/2 or A race before. (Ian Brown will now be the 6th instance of this I believe). It's almost like USAC has just 1/2 and then a 3 only race for a reason... hmmm. Obviously field sizes within OBRA are crazy and would be nearly impossible to manage within the USAC breakdown and I'm sure this is discussed off line often BUT it seems that having the 2/3 races be 3 only and adjusting the points accrual would help with the ambiguity surrounding the moves from Cat 3 > 2 and Cat 2 > 1 (where you have Masters getting a 2 upgrade but then just racing the 2/3's, etc...). Would it maybe be in everyone's interest to even out field sizes so you don't have 30 in the 4s and 1/2's but nearly 100 in the 2/3's?
Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback! Anyone checking today might have
seen some odd results as I hacked the code into shape. I've done some
fairly major refactoring of the output and score calculations; as a result
the page now displays all points earned (as well as detected
upgrades/downgrades) going back to 2014. Total points for each race are now
calculated on a rolling 1-year basis, as opposed to a fixed date 1 year in
the past. This should help shine some light on folks that should have been
eligible for an upgrade at some point in the past.
It's also revealed some interesting behavior in that I see some folks
testing the water in a higher category before returning back to easier
prey. Previously, any foray into a higher category would bump you into that
field permanently. You may now go back down to your previous field without
penalty, as long as you have not *ever* earned any upgrade points. I'm not
sure what the official OBRA stance is on this sort of thing, but that's how
I'm handling it.
Do not spindle, fold or mutilate. Many Bothans died to bring you this
information. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead.
https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
-Brad
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:18 PM Brad Davidson wrote:
> Welcome to another edition of Unofficial Cyclocross Upgrades, where
> everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. We've had three really
> big races since the last round of official upgrades took effect. If you
> want to check to see what my highly trained cloud-based AI machine learning
> model thinks of things, clickly clicky here:
>
> https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
>
> Cyclocross legends tell of a time long ago when folks kept track of their
> own points and voluntarily moved themselves out of lower categories when
> they started winning too much. We even had names for people that didn't do
> that. I'm not saying anyone has to, but if the following folks feel like
> moving up, they've got the points to support it:
>
> Michael Gallagher: 2 -> 1 (39)
> Ian Brown: 2 -> 1 (49)
> Madeline Stover: 3 -> 2 (40)
> Patrick Reedy: 3 -> 2 (36)
> Terry Hamness: 3 -> 2 (33)
> David Marchi: 3 -> 2 (30)
> Andrew Usher: 3 -> 2 (30)
> Steve C Williams: 3 -> 2 (27)
> Adam Kachman: 3 -> 2 (21)
> Mark Goodman: 3 -> 2 (20)
> Brady Cowing: 4 -> 3 (51)
> Rob Shatting: 4 -> 3 (32)
> Drew Hankins: 4 -> 3 (27)
> Andre Vogs: 4 -> 3 (27)
> Benjamin Lomas: 4 -> 3 (23)
> Joel West: 4 -> 3 (23)
> Joshua Boelter: 4 -> 3 (22)
> Kaeli Laxson: 5 -> 4 (28)
> Tim Sherry: 5 -> 4 (27)
> Justin Smith: 5 -> 4 (21)
>
> Lots of love to Candi, Jen, and all the other awesome OBRA staff that take
> the time to manually score and track all these things so that I can let my
> robots mangle the data.
>
> -Brad
>
Welcome to another edition of Unofficial Cyclocross Upgrades, where
everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. We've had three really
big races since the last round of official upgrades took effect. If you
want to check to see what my highly trained cloud-based AI machine learning
model thinks of things, clickly clicky here:
https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
Cyclocross legends tell of a time long ago when folks kept track of their
own points and voluntarily moved themselves out of lower categories when
they started winning too much. We even had names for people that didn't do
that. I'm not saying anyone has to, but if the following folks feel like
moving up, they've got the points to support it:
Michael Gallagher: 2 -> 1 (39)
Ian Brown: 2 -> 1 (49)
Madeline Stover: 3 -> 2 (40)
Patrick Reedy: 3 -> 2 (36)
Terry Hamness: 3 -> 2 (33)
David Marchi: 3 -> 2 (30)
Andrew Usher: 3 -> 2 (30)
Steve C Williams: 3 -> 2 (27)
Adam Kachman: 3 -> 2 (21)
Mark Goodman: 3 -> 2 (20)
Brady Cowing: 4 -> 3 (51)
Rob Shatting: 4 -> 3 (32)
Drew Hankins: 4 -> 3 (27)
Andre Vogs: 4 -> 3 (27)
Benjamin Lomas: 4 -> 3 (23)
Joel West: 4 -> 3 (23)
Joshua Boelter: 4 -> 3 (22)
Kaeli Laxson: 5 -> 4 (28)
Tim Sherry: 5 -> 4 (27)
Justin Smith: 5 -> 4 (21)
Lots of love to Candi, Jen, and all the other awesome OBRA staff that take
the time to manually score and track all these things so that I can let my
robots mangle the data.
-Brad
As the weekday series and Grand Prix come to an end, some folks might have
been hoping to pick up an upgrade before Cross Crusade starts and we all
have to fight our way through hundreds of riders on the course at once.
Although the Upgrades Page still says that upgrades are mandatory at 20
points to category 4 through 2, and 35 points to category 1, the officials
have (for the time being) moved to a monthly upgrade cycle. This may allow
folks to accrue points far in excess of the advertised maximums before
being required to upgrade.
BUT!!! If you want to know how you and your buddies are doing between
Candi-grams, I've put together a completely unofficial, highly automated
tally of upgrade points. You can find it here:
https://brandond.github.io/obra-cx-upgrades/
Again, this is COMPLETELY UNOFFICIAL and just a personal hobby project.
Please do not bother OBRA officials about anything you see there. The code
is on GitHub, feel free to put in a PR, or just go about your life, if you
don't like how it works.
-Brad
© 2024 Oregon Bicycle Racing Association