Fixing the MABRA BAR

The 2008 MABRA BAR results are now in, and are close to being final. The problems with the BAR results and updates are numerous and obvious, so cataloging them here is pointless. I doubt you'll find a single racer in MABRA who wouldn't like to see the process improved.

Many even want to help. GamJams receives a steady stream of emails on the topic with various thoughts, suggestions and mostly offers of support for whatever solution is identified.

But the problem for many of us is that we don't know what, exactly, the problem is:

• Why does the manual process employed currently take so long?
• What would be the objections from race promoters, teams, racers, MABRA staff to moving to an automated solution?
• Is cost an issue? How might those costs be offset?
• Are there solutions used currently by other Local Associations that are available to us, like the one used in California that Kyle writes about this week?
• What prevents us from scrapping what we have and starting from scratch?
• How do VA-Cycling and PA-Cycling do it?
• If we're stuck in a manual process, should the BAR Administrator's job be a management role, designed to oversee the work of the dozens of volunteers he would get if he asked for some help with the cumbersome manual process?

We're not going to come up with a solution in the Comments of this post. But maybe we can at least lay out some of the challenges and ideas here so we know what obstacles we have to overcome, and what resources we have available.

So if you have thoughts on how to fix the MABRA BAR, please leave them in the comments.

Comments

[Jesse]

An expert opinion to get would be the R1V Gurus who organize the Greenbelt series and get results back so quickly...results and revised standings are usually out within hours of the races being over. I'm blown away how quickly they get stuff up.

[Kyle]

What I think is we can already use an already built infrastructure used in another district. Why build a new one if one already works very well. But add ons and process can be defined by guys like the route 1 guru's.

[bill luecke]

This is a great forum for inspiring someone to contribute to make the BAR better.

Let me try to respond to each of these questions in turn. But first, a short mea culpa.

The major problem with the MABRA BAR this year is that I simply lost the passion for the project that I had in the past. Having lost that passion, I failed to turn the project over to someone who did, and the entire racing community suffered for it.

I've passed the responsibility on to others for 2009, and I'm sure that they will address the situation with greater energy than I had for it this year. Please give them your entire support.

The main point of my long note here is that, in my opinon, lack of computerization is not the problem. It's lack of will on the part of the administrator.

* Why does the manual process employed currently take so long?

The process is not "manual" The BAR lives on a database on my system at home. The scoring is all automated. I get the results from the promoters, suck them into the database, fix all the errors (and there are MANY) and emit the standings. Basically the slow parts involve _people_.

Why does it take so long?
1. Many promoters continue to revise the results for a week or more after the event. It's counterproductive to start until the results are finished.

2. The results posted by the promoter sometimes differ from the official results. Of course, recently the definition of "official" results is subject to interpretation. I know longer know what constitutes official.

3. Frequently the results that the promoter supplies are missing entire fields. Promoters often combine results in ways that don't line up with the BAR classes. That is, of course, the prerogative of the promoter. After all, it's their event. This is a common problem with Junior events. For example, the event announcement says that the JUniors will be scored as 10-14 and 15-18, but the results I get have only 10-18.

4. The results supplied by the promoters generally contain about 10% errors of licenses, club affiliations, etc. At any given event, between 8 and 30 (for TTs) one-day license will exist. All of these riders have to be validated against the rider database and either entered or assigned fictitious license #s. Even with Bikereg, the situation is still problematic--some Bikereg profiles are incorrect.

5. At the beginning of the season, many riders change teams. All the team changes, which I did not do very effectively in 2008, need to be validated against both the USAC database and the assertions of the riders. This is especially problematic for unattached riders.

6. In the past, the time and relentlessness of the BAR has not been in the input of the results. The time has been spent (as Evelyn Egizi will undoubtedly attest) as working with the promoters both before and after the event. Before, the BAR admin should work with the promoter to ensure that the fields line up with the BAR rules as much as the promoter is willing. After the event, the BAR admin must work with the promoter to get the results submitted. I don't believe that waiting for the promoter to upload the results himself will work effectively. The USAC database is missing many results.

* What would be the objections from race promoters, teams, racers, MABRA staff to moving to an automated solution?

Again, what is automated? If you're willing to have 10% error in the database, I suppose that an automated solution is possible. The USAC results database is full of errors.

What is automated? There is no way to automate the system of calling the promoters to explain why the fields that they offer are not part of the BAR system. There is no way to automate the calling of the promoters to ask where the results are

In any case, MABRA has been attempting to add this functionality to the MABRA site over the past year. This is a second project that I have basically mis-managed. It should have gone live already a year ago.

* Is cost an issue? How might those costs be offset?

No.

* Are there solutions used currently by other Local Associations that are available to us, like the one used in California that Kyle writes about this week?

I am unfamiliar with the Ca system.

* What prevents us from scrapping what we have and starting from scratch?

Nothing. I encourage someone to take up the mantle and manage creating a solution that everyone supports. It would be good for the region to have a person with real passion to promote the BAR. In my opinion, the people who are taking over from me run the same risk of losing the fervor for the task,

* How do VA-Cycling and PA-Cycling do it?
VA cycling has a dedicated guy, Bill Henderson, who started about the same time I did, in the mid-90s. Somehow he's managed to sustain the passion that I've lost.

* If we're stuck in a manual process, should the BAR Administrator's job be a management role, designed to oversee the work of the dozens of volunteers he would get if he asked for some help with the cumbersome manual process?

Again, what you have described is the Admin's role. The problem is not in the actual upload of the results. That part is easy. the problem is in the verification of the results, the interface with the promoters.

Part of my problem is that I think that the BAR has run its course as something that's useful for the organization. Reeves Taylor creaated the BAR in 1993, as a way to keep riders from driving to Pa, NJ, and Tidewater to race, so that we could build a local racing scene. It's hard to believe, but MABRA (though it wasn't called that then) in 1991 had almost no local races. I moved here on July 1, 1991, and didn't race once in MD, DC, or NOVA. I drove to PA for every race. We don't have that situation here now.

My personal situation might be illustrative. Although I have administered the BAR for 14 years, it plays absolutely no role in how I select which races to do. I decide based on how good the competition will be, how cool the course is, and how far I have to drive. Whether the race has BAR status or not never enters into my decision.

Aspects of the season-long BAR also encourage negative racing. Some people seem to be content to ride all year for a bunch of sixth to 10th places to pile on a few more points, instead of riding for the podium. That's probably the nature of any season-long competition.

[bill luecke]

I've reflected on my previous post, and have realized that I have probably created an impression that is opposite from the one intended. I did not intend to imply that event promoters are the source of the problems with the BAR. Promoting a bike race is the hardest job in the sport. You're responsible for a big event, with dozens of factors beyond your control. You're probably understaffed, and probably go out of bed at 3:30AM on event day. It's not reasonable for the BAR admin to expect that you're going to sit down and vet each and every license # and team affiliation.

The source of the timeliness problems with the BAR cannot be laid at the feet of the promoters.

[Mike May]

Wow, Bill. Thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive posts. There's a lot to digest there.

Absolutely the role of the race promoter should be vaunted. But what the MABRA BAR does for promoters is guarantee turnout. A modest crit on a non-selective industrial park loop will still draw 300-400 racers, almost without fail. In exchange for that turnout, is it reasonable to ask promoters to follow a different process that enables quicker reporting? I'm asking, and really want to hear what promoters have to say about it.

You also raise the point about 10% errors. You know well from the past week that published errors are discovered and corrected, usually by the affected racers themselves. What do others think about this - what if BAR results when up more quickly, but with less accuracy? We'd all be responsible for ensuring that our results were reflected - is that too much to ask of the riders?

And I agree fully that any system where thousands of people are relying on the passion and enterprise of a single individual isn't sustainable (one of the reasons you're seeing more and more contributors here on GamJams). There should be many more than one person formally responsible for the BAR. It should be a team, run by the BAR Administrator, and with different people dedicated to separate functions. If one person gets sick, or busy, or moves away, or has his laptop stolen, the BAR process has to have redundancy built in.

Thanks for your time, Bill. The hour or so you put in last night, and those other 14 years as well.

[Kyle Jones]

I second Mikes response in saying thank you for the comprehensive response and the amount of time you have done for this region. Maybe you can do a life and times piece for gamjams every now and then how this region has changed, pretty interesting. You are bringing some issues to light.

I know race promoters do a lot and almost every club puts on a race if not 2-3 of them a year(at least the clubs I belonged on have done multiple events). Why dont we just make a requirement that clubs turn in results faster. If it is not made important by the region it kind of gets put on the back burner. Or why don't use the official results that come out. In fact why is there two results. That alone needs to be a topic. I would think the official results would come through the bar and not what the promoter gives.

Like I finished RFK and was not counted and I could not race Ft. Richie(snapped derailleur hanger) but still was placed. In the grand scheme of things of life it does not really mater but I would like it to be a little more accurate because I spend a few thousand dollars a year going to(gas, race fees, hotel rooms(Washington county) our local races.

I thank you and the rest of the people who volunteer to make this sport happen.

[Jim Wilson]

One point that concerned me was that one race awarded 20 points to the winner -- and there was only one contestant. This was a typically sparsely attended juniors event. Maybe there should be some participation level-set/formula (e.g., 1-5 racers, max points 5, 6-10, 10 points max, > 10 20 pts max ...). This was something like they used to do, but it does make for even more complicated scoring and makes it chancy to guess which races will be important.

Also, I think holding championship events during Nationals should be avoided. Anyway, that's all a personal thing, not a big deal. There is more and better competition as the kids enter the senior mainstream.

Jim Wilson, Coordinator
NCVC Juniors