NHRL Rulebook Suggestion/Rant

[efgordon]

After reading the rulebook for the 50th time this month, i noticed something that just doesn't sit well with me. I would like to officially complain/rant about it and hope that it can be fixed one day.

I think tiebreaker #1 is stupid. nothing personal to whoever made it so, but nevertheless.......

I also realize that ties will probably never happen, but that is not the point.

Tiebreaker #1 for drivers tied in the point standings is "least number of races attended"

why? is that the message the league wants to send? tie goes to the guy who doesn't show up as often? yes, i realize that its in the drivers best interest to show up for more races because of the way the standings work and throwing out races and stuff. That shouldent make any difference though for tiebreakers. If two drivers tie for the #1 spot in one of the series, the tie should be broken by something the league stands for overall. Make the #1 tiebreaker "most races attended" and it would make sense because it would seem the nhrl would want to reward people showing up. Make the #1 tiebreaker "least penalty points" and it would make more sense because it would seem the nhrl would want to reward drivers who dont driver like jerk-offs. Make the #1 tiebreaker "most wins" and it still makes a ton more sense than "least number of races attended". The tiebreaker can be pretty much anything other than "least number of races attended", and it would make more sense.

sorry bout the rant, but i just had to get it off my chest.

[Rookiesrock]

Thanks for pointing that out EF. Even the rules are subject to sudden, random and unpredictable change.

[DaveO]

EF good catch on that one! I'm starting to see and understand about all this " subject to sudden, random and unpredictable change"

[lepage71]

That line hasn't changed for 5 seasons...

[efgordon]

I understand the philosophy of the rule. If a driver can score as many points as another driver with less races, kudos to him. It would certainly suggest that driver had more impressive finishes. however, so what, its still a tie. With the current system in place (which is all fine and dandy), it is possible that someone will lose a spot, then realize after the race that all they had to do to maintain that spot was not show up. on the other hand, the winner of the tiebreaker is getting rewarded for something he didnt DO (race for it).

I certainly dont want to make a bigger deal about this than it needs to be, but i just think it should be looked at and some consideration given to my suggestions.

when i read it, this is what it reminded me of

http://www.newpaltz.edu/oracle/article.cfm?id=976

[groverhardt]

Good call. I think it should be given consideration that the person who sacrificed the time to make more races may have lost his wife over it, so I agree it should go to the one who's been to the most races. It's also becoming clear to me what Rookie's motto is.