Bracket Style Tournament Racing?

[Stephen's Dad]

OK...I need some help.

For a couple years now we've relied on Grand Prix race management software, a Micro-wizard timer & my Dell 9300 Inspiron to schedule & track the races. At best this method has been called "accurate & fair" & at worst "downright boring".

This year I was blessed with a new Tiger with an old Dad whose been Scouting for over 15 years in another council. This guy is a dedicated & beaded Scouter & an absolute riot to be with. Lots of traditional silly Scouting songs & crazy skits. He is a breath of fun fresh air in everything we do. Another benefit to me is that he wants to run the PWD this year...a FUN Derby...with Boys handling the details....without the electronics.

Now we've used my trusty electronics to get us through a half dozen Pack, District & Council derbies that we've hosted & despite the fears of some traditionalists, I trust this system to provide fair & deadly accurate race results.

But the Pack Committee & I like the idea of a raucus boy-run Stan-Style Pinewood. This "paper method" is supposed to employ the boys choosing lanes (sometimes) & staging their own cars in a fun filled 2.5 hours of racing (52 boys). So we decided to give the PWD to our new Tiger Leader Pinewood Chair.

My new PWD Chair came over tonight with a bunch of well worn pencil drawn papers. It starts with tree of 64 lines that keep getting smaller by half, 32 - 16 - 8- etc.

I think this was "chart racing"? I asked him if he knew of Stan Pope or had a name of this race method & all I got was a blank stare. But he assures me this method is time tested & a real boy pleaser.

Cars that are finishing poorly will be staged into seperate races where we'll enter a Cubmaster car that is fixed to run slowly for an "I Beat the Cubmaster" ribbon & stuff like that which I really like.

There are lines like:

cubs top to 16
open top to 8
cubs bottom
open bottom
cubs top to 2
open top to 2
cubs bottom
open bottom
-----0----0-----
open top finish
open bottom finish
cubs top finish
cubs bottom finish

We have a 4 lane track but the new PWC says we'll only use 2 lanes at a time all night.

He refers to this as "Bracket Style Tournament racing".

Does this make any sense? Is there a name for this type of racing?

Stan, Randy....HELP!!!!!!

Can we still employ the use of the GPRM to at least post results?

Do I run the risk of deflating the significance of this event for the truly competitve Boys in my unit? I want to be sure that our top 5 trophy winners really are the fastest 5 while still having this be a fun filled event for ALL of the racers.

TIA,

Steve

[gpraceman]

Can we still employ the use of the GPRM to at least post results?

From what you described, it seems like you'd be taking a step backwards, towards paper and pencil management and one that will run much slower. Race Management software is intended to make managing the race easier. It also sounds like an elimination bracket, so you will get all the disadvantages that goes along with elimination methods. With that said, it is up to your organization to decide what is the best fit for them. Just make sure you know what the drawbacks are before you launch into a new system.

I'm sure Stan will jump in here about his quintuple elimination method, which may be better than the one described.

GPRM can still be used to post the results from the timer, using the Test/Tiebreak functionality. However, you won't see the racer's names on screen, just some generic ones.

[Stan Pope]

You can get a better understanding of the process if you ask him to show you how the chart works using a smaller group of scout's cars, e.g. 8 of 'em. Number them 1 through 8 and apply the rule that the lower number of the two racing will win the heat. Have him step through the whole process on paper using those 8 cars.

I think that your race committee needs to see and understand this dry run of the process before buying in. Then bring the details back here and fill us in as well. Keep in mind that Wood Badge beads and understanding of PWD fun are not synonymous. Nor are they mutually exclusive ... you can probably see mine in my avatar! (They reflect completion of both Cub Scout Trainer Wood Badge course EC-CS-19-90 and Boy Scout Leader Wood Badge course C-29-94.)

It sounds like a traditional charted (maybe double) elimination race with the twist that as racers are eliminated from trophy contention, they race again against a car that you know they will beat. (Rather akin to the Guaranteed to leave with a win system described recently on this board... the elimination criteria is that each racer keeps racing until he wins ... the last one racing goes head-to-head with a slow-poke Cubmaster's car.)

Except for the "after-the-race" match-up with the slow-poke car, it sounds very much like the DE system ran at our district races for lots of years before we abandoned it in favor of uncharted quintuple elimination racing.

Something I've not mentioned about the no-chart multiple elim system is that you can even run it by having the heat participants themselves function as the finish line judges (and use a qualified, unbiased adult if a tie-break is needed.) You might get some interesting insights into the workings of the 7 to 10 year old minds!

[Stephen's Dad]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Randy - There is no question we're moving backward. That was the Committee's goal. They have been informed of this but like the "quaintness" of a paper system - sigh.


Stan - I tried to establish what this format would be called. Essentially two cars start with the winner of each heat moving up in the chart & the other moving onto another different chart. The first place winner will be undefeated. I am concerned about those finishes that are very close & the second place finisher could end up competing for a trophy he doesn't deserve IE wins second place by a mile while the first place finisher struggles to earn that title & might be defeated by the second place car later in the same race.

Hence I would like to capture all of the race results using the Micro-wizard & GPRM so that there is a time record of every car in every heat.

[Stan Pope]

A "quaint paper system" is fine IF it rewards the boys' efforts with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Has the committee faced up to that aspect of the question? Or are they dealing with emotion only?

With a clearer understanding of the process details and of how the places are determined, we can help quantify the accuracy characteristics.

From your description, it sounds like double elimination with the survivor of the bottom bracket being eliminated without losing twice.

[Pinewood Daddy]

My first thought was maybe the committee is trying find a way to unseat Stephen as Pack Champ. I don't know how your Pack feels about the same boy winning every year. We're in the same boat. But if he never loses a race, he will end up on top anyway.

I kind of like the idea. The competition really heats up as the bracket advances. The losers compete in another bracket. Everybody gets to race!

It does sound slow and a step back. Having just held our PWD, I know Lane Rotation is boring. Even with the kids bringing their cars from the finish line and slow staging, we finished racing 30 boys in under an hour (with timer and GPRM). It'll probably take 2-3 hours for you to finish.

Sounds like fun! I hope I can be there to watch!

[gpraceman]

I know Lane Rotation is boring. Even with the kids bringing their cars from the finish line and slow staging, we finished racing 30 boys in under an hour (with timer and GPRM).

I fully agree. LR is very boring. Some race organizers really like it because it is easy to understand and running a Modified LR chart is the fastest way to crank out heats. However, it does have big drawbacks, like racers pretty much having the same set of opponents. While opponents don't really matter if you run a timed race, people (especially the kids) like to see the cars go against lots of other cars, since it increases the chances of a heat win. It is no fun to watch Billy's car beat up on Johnny's car over and over.

That is why I always recommend to use the built-in Perfect-N type chart generator instead of the LR chart generator, so racers will get a variety of opponents. Though, some people don't like the seemingly randomn nature of PPN charts. However, you can typically stage cars faster than LR charts (except the modified type) since you are not always waiting for cars to return from the finish line.

My philosophy with GPRM has always been to provide flexibility and choice. Know the advantages/disadvantages of a method and make a choice for what fits the organization best. I will not (nor will my software) ever dictate how someone should run their race, since an "ideal" method that works for everyone just does not exist.

[Stan Pope]

A "quaint paper system" is fine IF it rewards the boys' efforts with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

Argh!!! I omitted another important "IF": ... and IF it provides each boy an opportunity for "lots of racing".

Two heats is, in my opinion, not "lots of racing" ... at least for most of the boys. (An exception might be the boy whose car ground to a stop halfway down the track.) The at least five heats guaranteed to our district racers in the quintuple elim is closer to acceptable. Those few eliminated after 5 heats may have both 2nd and 3rd place heat finishes.

If, in fact, the "PWD Chairman du jour" is touting double elimination, he needs to be challenged on both IF's.

[Go Bubba Go]

A "quaint paper system" is fine IF it rewards the boys' efforts with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Has the committee faced up to that aspect of the question? Or are they dealing with emotion only?

It sounds like the driving force here isn't a conclusion based on thinking through the "fairness" or "accuracy" of your current method, as much as it is nostalgia, a gut level desire for something different, perhaps "brackets on the brain" (it is "March Madness", after all), etc.. If that is true, and if you aren't dealing with Pineheads or Statisticians who enjoy thinking through all the "fairness" and "accuracy" issues (and would quickly lose focus or patience with such a discussion), you are going to have to adapt a little.

The challenge will be to give them what they want (paper brackets, probably big ones up on a wall, results recorded "live" with the corresponding smelly markers of various colors) without the downsides of which they are blissfully unaware (i.e. elimination based strictly on heats - yuk (Our Council races are actually Single Elimination - yes, I said Single)).

Unfortunately, not a real direct recommendation from me as this is my weakest area (least studied thus far).

But I suspect one of Stan's "two stage" recommendations is in order i.e. first set of brackets used to determine qualifiers for finals, then another set of brackets for the "finals". First set should weed out the slow racers (but give them a good number of opportunities to race), with the cream rising to the top and proceeding to the much quicker finals.

All recorded live with a mix of colors on the charts and marker smells in the air. Maybe you could get some of those scented ones? (i.e. Orange, Grape, etc.).

[Pinewood Daddy]

That is why I always recommend to use the built-in Perfect-N type chart generator instead of the LR chart generator, so racers will get a variety of opponents. Though, some people don't like the seemingly randomn nature of PPN charts.

Our Pack tried Perfect-N 3 years ago. Yes, it's random nature really confused people, so it wasn't used again. But pre-staging cars a race or two in advance would really speed things up if there are alot of racers.

[gpraceman]

Our Pack tried Perfect-N 3 years ago. Yes, it's random nature really confused people, so it wasn't used again.

I think it really helps to explain it simply by:

1. Everyone will race in each lane of the track.
2. Everyone will race the same number of times.
3. Everyone will run against a variety of opponents.
4. The schedule will jumble up when a racer runs, so they don't just run back to back to back.

They don't need to understand the algorithms involved, just those points. The big thing is that it will lead to a far more exciting race than using LR.

But pre-staging cars a race or two in advance would really speed things up if there are alot of racers.

Yes. Being able to pre-stage the cars, can tremendously speed up a race. If you print out the schedule, your race crew can even stage multiple heats ahead. This may even mean that you can squeeze in an extra run per lane and give the racers even more racing. You can even post a copy of the schedule on the wall, so everyone can know which particular heats they are in.

Running an elimination style race, or any type of "dynamic" schedule will run slower, since pre-staging opportunities are greatly reduced. With and elimination style race you also quickly lose the interest of those that are eliminated.

Of course, there are always tradeoffs in whatever you do.

[Pinewood Daddy]

4. The schedule will jumble up when a racer runs, so they don't just run back to back to back.

I think the biggest problem is "We've always done it that way". Change is hard on people. Every Pack, District & Council race I've been to has been Lane Rotation. We stage each group of boys in front of the track to cheer for their cars, and bring them back to the Start. That keeps the boys physically involved. I assume if we used Perfect-N the randomness would require just a couple of boys to bring the cars back while the next race is run.

I'm certainly not knocking the Perfect-N method. I think varied opponents is a great idea. But we have to consider what the crowd wants to see. "Johnnys" car racing once & disappearing for 15 minutes; or his car running 4 times in a row (unless he starts the round in lane 1).

I applaud Stephen's Dad for trying something different. A change might be good. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[gpraceman]

I think the biggest problem is "We've always done it that way".

How I hate that excuse! While some traditions are good, however, some should really be re-examined to determine if they are still fulfilling their purpose.

We stage each group of boys in front of the track to cheer for their cars, and bring them back to the Start. That keeps the boys physically involved. I assume if we used Perfect-N the randomness would require just a couple of boys to bring the cars back while the next race is run.

You can still keep the kids involved. They can stage their cars on the start line and retrieve them from the finish to take them back to the staging table. It also gives your race crew a big advantage in that it can get cars (and kids) pre-staged to keep the heats flowing quickly.

But we have to consider what the crowd wants to see. "Johnnys" car racing once & disappearing for 15 minutes; or his car running 4 times in a row (unless he starts the round in lane 1).

So, what's more important, seeing Johnny's car run 4 times in a row or in Billy not getting beat by Johnny multiple times? IMO, it is better to inconvenience the crowd some than to have Billy go through that (along with his parents). Instead, I think it better to let Billy face a variety of opponents and increase his odds at a heat win. Like I said, there are always tradeoffs. So, which is really more important? What will be remembered by the kids in the years to come, waiting to see their cars run or in winning a heat?

[Pinewood Daddy]

I've pushed this a little away from Stephen's Dad's question, but I'll continue.

I think the biggest problem is "We've always done it that way".

How I hate that excuse! While some traditions are good, however, some should really be re-examined to determine if they are still fulfilling their purpose.

I agree. I need to formulate a plan to propose a change. A change that will be accepted by the uninformed. Unfortunately our Committee Chairman and new Cubmaster are traditionalists who don't like change. It's like shoveling snow into the wind.

You can still keep the kids involved. They can stage their cars on the start line and retrieve them from the finish to take them back to the staging table. It also gives your race crew a big advantage in that it can get cars (and kids) pre-staged to keep the heats flowing quickly.

Out of curiosity, how do you get the kids away from the race and stage them at the start line??

IMO, it is better to inconvenience the crowd some than to have Billy go through that (along with his parents). Instead, I think it better to let Billy face a variety of opponents and increase his odds at a heat win. Like I said, there are always tradeoffs. So, which is really more important? What will be remembered by the kids in the years to come, waiting to see their cars run or in winning a heat?

Again, I agree. Facing various opponents sounds like more fun that beating the same kid 3-4 times.

I'm at one end of the spectrum. My son's have always had the fastest cars. It doesn't matter who they race, they always win. This year there was some better competition, so we didn't win every race by 2-3 feet, only 1-1.5 car lengths.

Whatever change I propose has to look like it benefits everyone, and not just to draw attention away from my son's always winning.

[Stan Pope]

Running an elimination style race, or any type of "dynamic" schedule will run slower, since pre-staging opportunities are greatly reduced.

I think that this is incorrect. The prestaging of PPN, No-Chart Multiple Elimination and most charted elimination systems is readily "knowable" several heats ahead. I contend that the "nochart" system can in fact run more quickly than charted systems, because of the participation of the scouts to retrieve their onw cars and bring them to the starting line!

With and elimination style race you also quickly lose the interest of those that are eliminated.

A quintuple elim for 50 cars, running 3 cars at a time, has the following characteristics:

During heats 71 through 89 (approximately 50% of the expected 147 heats) the first 6 racers are eliminated. (Almost 90% of the racers were in contention for 1st place through about 50% of the racing.)

Continuing through heat 119 (approximately 80% of the expected heats), 26 racers (about half) have been eliminated. (Almost 50% of the racers were in contention for 1st place through 80% of the racing.)

By heat 147 the field of racers is pared to one racer in each score group. Then a ladder finals (4 to 8 heats) finishes it up to award 1st through 5th place trophies, with the last race deciding the first place trophy.

I think if you compare comparable statements about other methods, you will see that the most partiipants "can know" that they are out of the running much earlier. Whether they "do know" depends on how much or how little information is disclosed during the course of racing.

Some folks think that noone should know anything about the status of the competition until the racing is done. They say that it increases the suspense. In that case, the parents might as well not even come to the races until the races are over! Suspense builds as the possibilities are recognized and clarified! That happens as information becomes available.

==> Soap box mode :== "off"