Thinking about this
, I've just thought about a little amendment that could be done to the unrejectification criteria, without pushing the bar too low and retrospectively unrejectifying many drivers from the past (although, after all, they were retrospectively made rejects in the first place!). The former criteria for unrejectification (ie. pre-2003) said that you needed to score more than 2 points; of course, that was for the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. But what if we try to give some value to the positions lower than 6th, ie. down to 8th, 10th or something? So that you could unrejectify yourself scoring a good (and I mean really good) deal of lower positions. This would help with the perceived problems of today's ultrareliable cars.
Before 2003, 5th place was worth 2 points, and 6th place 1 point. From 2003 their value went up to 4 and 3, and since 2010 it is 10 and 8. You can see that while one 6th was worth exactly half than one 5th before 2003, now it's worth 80%, so the ratio has changed. We can't use the new scoring systems if we want to retain a balance between scoring points today and yesterday, and a new scoring system could always be introduced in the future. So we need something that doesn't rely in real world changes (just like the current system).
Let's say we wanted to reward positions lower than 6th, without changing a lot the proportions of the pre-2003 scoring system. Under that, 2nd place was worth 60% of a win, 3rd place 66,6% of 2nd, 4th 75% of 3rd, 5th 66,6% of 4th and 6th 50% of 5th. We see that, on average, each place was worth aproximately 2/3 of the previous one. The idea behind it was that you got more rewarded the higher you finished, not only in absolute terms but in relative terms. But because you "ran out of points" at the end of the scale, the percentage decreased to 50% between 6th and 5th, and 0% after that, instead of going up to something like 80% between 5th and 4th and 90% between 6th and 5th. This will always happen towards the end of the scale, because at some moment you have to give someone a single point and then the next one will score none (unless you want to give points to every possible finisher, but I guess none of us agree with that).
My goal is to come up with a system that rewards scorers down the order and keeps an increasing percentage ratio between positions, from 60% between first and second to something around 75% towards the end, before decreasing again because of the aforementioned reasons.
Before making any calculations I wanted to make sure that one 4th, one 5th plus one 6th and three 6ths remained viable ways to unrejectify yourself. As I changed the ratios, I was always going to change the balance of one 4th equalling three 6ths, one 5th and one 6th equaling three 6ths and so on, the balance upon which the unrejectification system was developped. But that doesn't really matter as long as the places you need remain unchanged. For example, if 4th place gives 8 points, 5th place gives 5 points and 6th place gives 3 points, and you place the unrejectification criteria on scoring 8 points, you still need three 6ths to escape rejectdom even though three 6ths are now better than a single 4th. A 5th and a 6th remain a valid road, even though three 6ths give you more points.
After making many calculations, I've come up with three possible alternatives: taking into account the top 8, the top 10 and the top 12. All of them follow the aforementioned rules. The different points awarded in each of the proposal are there to acommodate more people scoring points without breaking the balance and avoiding decimals.
The tables are self-explanatory; the third column is the ratio between the points awarded for that position and those awarded for the previous one (just in case). The number of points awarded for 4th place is the minimum a driver needs to escape rejectdom, so it would 13, 23 and 47 under each of the systems. The important thing here, though, is not the points but the relative positions. A driver would no longer be a reject if he finished 4th; 5th and 6th; two times 5th; or three times 6th, exactly like it's always been.
But if we look at the "Top 10" system, now a driver could also unrejectify himself finishing in 7th place four times, or finishing three times 7th and two times 10th. But I can see two problems with changing the system: breaking with tradition, and having to take into account many more combinations. Also, for example, under this system Buemi would have unrejectified himself long ago, but he hasn't ever finished higher than 7th. Alex Zanardi would have nearly twice the amount of points needed, and even Luca Badoer would be out (26 points).
What do you think? How many of you are in favour of a change? My ratio scheme is not that interesting, but I think that any changes should retain the classical one 4th, one 5th plus one 6th and three 6ths ways to escape rejectdom. Alternative proposals would be interesting to read.