Salary cap for lower category races

[Falcor CC]

Yesterdays Tortola Vacation race really bothered me. Allagen won in the morning, Bergwerk in the afternoon. Both were deserved wins, so nothing against that. However, both of those teams were over 100k(!) more expensive than any other team in their respective fields. It is not forbidden to bring such expensive teams to cat 1 races, but I think it's really annoying and takes away a lot of the fun when they can easily dominate with such expensive teams in races where other teams don't take their best riders (which makes sense for "non-prestigious" cat 1 races). This gives teams the option to just 'buy' palmares entries in cat 1 races. One could say that you can always bring an expensive team yourself, but especially for newer and/or most lower division teams, this isn't an option.

My suggestion: introduce a hard salary cap for lineups, especially in cat1 races. Don't think it's needed at all in cat4-6 races, where teams should actually be encouraged to bring their best possible lineups (if anything, raise the maximum salary there). But maybe being able to bring the same team to a cat1 race that you bring to a cat6 race shouldn't be possible.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Very good topic, Falcor.

First, let's analyse if this strategy was successful:

In the morning race (4 teams), Allagen with that strategy made the largest profit.
In the afternoon race (5 teams), bergwerk with that strategy made only the 2nd largest profit. (You made the most, Falcor.)

So, to some extent, it was successful. But why? Shouldn't the prize money factors (i.e. less money for cat. 1 races) solve it? Shouldn't the competition with other cheaper teams solve it?

It should.... but there is one big issue with the current system: The average profit depends on the number of teams in race. Check my excel-file in this thread: Prize Money Distribution

So why is that? The reason is the (unrealistic) "discount" on the salary. In your example, Allagen and bergwerk had more than 100k higher salaries, but they only had to pay 40/50% of that.

Allagen and bergwerk did nothing wrong. In fact they used a clever strategy financially.

But it is fair to ask if we like the system like that.

[Falcor CC]

That is spot on indeed, this issue usually fades when fields are bigger (ideally 10 teams or higher), not just because you pay a higher % of the salary, but because it is also harder to achieve the same results in a bigger field (an AND AND situation). However, I don't think a salary cap hurts the 10+ teams field situation. If anything, it makes the races more open and harder to lose a lot of money. As for smaller fields, I think it would be an immediate improvement.

It is not about the money in the end, like you said I made more than bw yesterday. But I think bw had way more fun than I did in that race, as he got way better results and all I/the other teams could do was sit and wait until bw was gone and we could fight it out for a podium place without any pressure since we were so far behind...

So obviously it would have a different (bigger) impact for smaller fields compared to bigger fields, but I think it would be an improvement in both scenarios.

Edit: again, I agree it was actually a clever strategy by Allagen and bw. While I initally complained a little bit to bw about it, he did end up making the race way more attractive than I initially expected.
But still, we should indeed reconsider if something like that should be possible.

[Servicio Médico]

I dont think a salary cap is a good idea.
Like Gip already mentioned is the biggest problem the incentive to bring super teams to these races with really small fields.
I never understood how it makes sense that the teams bringing the best and therefor usually most expansive teams should be "compensated" for their better chances to win with not having to pay their salaries.. and teams not going over the payed salary get nothing but worse chances.
If someone wants to bring an expensive team to maximize their chances or just for fun or whatever i think they should be able to do it , even if its just a random cat 1 race. Restricting things the least amount possible is usually better in my mind.
But if someone decides to do that he should pay for it also ..there is no rational reason salaries should be subsidized.. nobody is forced to go over the limit..if you do its your decision and you have to pay.. its not like peaple get extra money for staying inside the payed salary limit like the peaople going over it get .. so thats by no means fair.
One other aspect is that the price money is calculated for 10 teams ..so if you ride in bigger fields than that you get shafted even more coz you have more competition and less riders on average that gets price money .
I think schappy mentioned it a few times price money should calculated for a 22 team peloton .. would make the most sense ... max teams max price money
If we had that implemented and no salary subsidies i dont think these super teams in cat 1 races wont be that frequent anyway since the incentives are not really there anymore. And if still someone wants to bring them its fine.. they pay for it at least unlike now.
I think in general people should be free to bring teams they want but there has to be drawbacks too if you go to the extreme. Getting better chances while at the same time not having to pay for it never made sense to me.

[Falcor CC]

If we had that implemented and no salary subsidies i dont think these super teams in cat 1 races wont be that frequent anyway since the incentives are not really there anymore. And if still someone wants to bring them its fine.. they pay for it at least unlike now.

I get your point, but there is one thing wrong with your reasoning. If there are no more salary subsidies, the prize money will be 100% too, meaning those teams would make even more money because the field is that small. And you can't leave the prize money as it is right now then, or teams will only receive 50% prize money for 100% salary in a 5-team race, for example.

[Servicio Médico]

Why is that? I see no reason to have 100% price money in small fields if you cut the subsidies.
It would be like this for now 10 teams max money: If only 5 teams start you get 50% price money but you just wont get 50% salary subsidies over the limit
And i dont see why that would be a problem... if someone stays inside the limit they wont have to pay anything on that front..it only affects the teams that go over the limit..and thats their decision so no reason to subsidize them.
Price money and salary subsidies are not connected and shouldnt be. 100% salary is 0 btw ..unless you go over the limit..you dont have to do that so if you do do it on your own cost..for that you get better chances to win.. your risk reward..no reason to subsidize your risk

[Falcor CC]

I think there's a nuance there for teams that aren't riding expensive but are over the limit, for example in hilly or climbing stages, where it is very hard to stay under the limit at all (climbing stages) or to be competitive while under or close to the limit (hilly stages). Yesterday for example, almost all teams were over the salary, which is fine, but that would mean that without the salary subsidies, they would make no money at all, despite only riding for 30-50k over the limit in a harder stage. In that case teams are pushed to tours (where there's usually bigger fields) even more than they already are today from a financial perspective. So I disagree and think salary and prize money are very much related. However, maybe the % are just off. Perhaps a 10% prize money drop for a 5% salary drop is a better ratio than 10%-10%...

[Servicio Médico]

And what do these teams do in 10+ fields then? there are no subsidies and less money on average?
I think if you cant field a team inside the limit of covered salary its a team building issue and has nothing to do with price money or salary subsidies.
Could be a problem for new players that have no clue about it yet i can give you that.. but they will always have a problem especially in 10+ teams fields coz there they have to pay full salary anyway. So i wouldnt consider that at all since its a completely different problem independent of price money or salary subsidies.

[Falcor CC]

I think if you cant field a team inside the limit of covered salary its a team building issue and has nothing to do with price money or salary subsidies.

This feels like a wrong generalization. It stands for flat(tisch) stages, but I would like to see you try to win a hard climber stage with a team that is under salary

That being said, I definitely agree to some extent. I think there's some truth to both sides, and I am not against keeping it as it is even. I just think for the general enjoyment of the game for as many teams as possible, maybe "nerfing" big, rich, strong teams to stop them from cleaning up all cat 1 races against weaker teams maybe introducing a salary cap is a good start.

[cataracs]

The solution for your issue would be races open for low division teams (poor teams), but we don't have enough numbers for that currently.

But since you mentionned Allagen, he doesn't really have a "super team". Many teams can bring a line up like that, it's just a decision to take.

[Servicio Médico]

I think if you cant field a team inside the limit of covered salary its a team building issue and has nothing to do with price money or salary subsidies.

This feels like a wrong generalization. It stands for flat(tisch) stages, but I would like to see you try to win a hard climber stage with a team that is under salary

That being said, I definitely agree to some extent. I think there's some truth to both sides, and I am not against keeping it as it is even. I just think for the general enjoyment of the game for as many teams as possible, maybe "nerfing" big, rich, strong teams to stop them from cleaning up all cat 1 races against weaker teams maybe introducing a salary cap is a good start.

well always depends on the competition i would say.. if everyone brings a team inside the covered limit ..someone will win the race like that but yeah sure in general people have more expensive teams in these races... but thats by choice too.. in cat 1 races i usually always try to field a team that doesnt exceed the covered salary.. but thats only my philosophy ... but its possible so if you decide you want to bring a better team thats only fair..but i think its fair then too that you pay for it
And in the end there will always be special cases were a general rule might not fit perfectly ..but thats the way it is.. we have to fine a solution thats fair in most common cases
And the salary subsidies usually only favor the big strong teams anyway since the small ones usually cant field 2 climber 4 classics teams or whatever anyway since they dont have the riders to begin with.. compensating the ones with advantage again by paying their salary on top just feels wrong to me

[Falcor CC]

The solution for your issue would be races open for low division teams (poor teams), but we don't have enough numbers for that currently.

But since you mentionned Allagen, he doesn't really have a "super team". Many teams can bring a line up like that, it's just a decision to take.

Agree on the first part, just not realistic with the current amount of teams.

As for the second part: 2 types of super teams: super leaders and super helpers, Allagen with his whole 60+ team siebs 50% of the field on the first climb and has an advantage for the rest of the race - also a form of super team