UCI Reform
Saw this on twitter. Inner Ring have a summary.
Fewer teams (16 vs 18) with fewer riders (22 vs 30) in an 'A' group with a further 8 teams in a 'B' Group.
http://inrng.com/2014/03/uci-world-tour-reforms/
Haven't had a chance to read it in full yet
Fewer teams (16 vs 18) with fewer riders (22 vs 30) in an 'A' group with a further 8 teams in a 'B' Group.
http://inrng.com/2014/03/uci-world-tour-reforms/
Haven't had a chance to read it in full yet
0
Comments
-
This from inrng is the part which seems the most concerning:
"It’s not in the small PDF but currently a rider’s sporting value is the sum of their points for the last two years, so a bad injury in one year need not ruin their/the team’s sporting value. But your point’s still very valid as risk concentrates in a few riders.
I suppose with the new system a dropped team could hope to rise back up… then again a rider on a relegated team invokes a break clause and moves."0 -
Not in favour of fewer WT teams ... Seems like the usual UCI idea of reducing the influence of teams/riders ...0
-
Less WT teams opens up more wildcard spots. At the moment the lower WT teams are really stretched to be competitive in enough races to justify them being WT and are often doing races they care little about. By taking away their obligation to be in all races and instead having a wider selection of teams looking to target fewer of them the quality should rise.Crankbrother wrote:Not in favour of fewer WT teams ... Seems like the usual UCI idea of reducing the influence of teams/riders ...Twitter: @RichN950 -
I agree about it being good for wildcard teams, but with fewer spots at the top table it makes it less certain for riders and sponsors that they'll get to the races they want to and that drives down sponsor investment and riders salaries ... Especially as it often comes down to politics and/or nationality for who gets the wildcard spots ...0
-
There will still be the same number of riders and teams in each of the races. But now a couple of the ones who don't want to be there and are too weak to compete are replaced by two that are ready to contribute.Crankbrother wrote:I agree about it being good for wildcard teams, but with fewer spots at the top table it makes it less certain for riders and sponsors that they'll get to the races they want to and that drives down sponsor investment and riders salaries ... Especially as it often comes down to politics and/or nationality for who gets the wildcard spots ...
Wildcards do come down to things like nationality and politics, but with more wildcard slots more are available on merit.
As for sponsor investments and salaries - it's not sustainable financially. The World Tour teams alone support over 500 riders at a minimum wage of 40K. That's too much. Golf and tennis attract far more money and can't support that. Sorry to sound like a heartless capitalist, but the sport's wage bill needs to be downsized.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Teams being one man smaller would be good in general, but would be nice to mix it up a bit and have the odd race with, say, five man teams. Could make things nicely chaotic.0
-
That's only £20m guaranteed salary ... Over 18 teams that's £1.1m per team, hardly a huge sum when you look at the money ASO and the UCI bring in on the back of the WT teams ...
I'm happy to manage the volume by reducing the number of riders racing in each team but that should be balanced by more guaranteed spots for teams/riders ...0 -
But in reality £20m doesn't cover the top ten riders.Crankbrother wrote:That's only £20m guaranteed salary ... Over 18 teams that's £1.1m per team, hardly a huge sum when you look at the money ASO and the UCI bring in on the back of the WT teams ...
Very few are on 40k. My point was more that world no.300 in golf & tennis is barely breaking even, yet cycling is trying to support even more than that.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
But in reality £20m doesn't cover the top ten riders.Crankbrother wrote:That's only £20m guaranteed salary ... Over 18 teams that's £1.1m per team, hardly a huge sum when you look at the money ASO and the UCI bring in on the back of the WT teams ...
Of course ... But after that it just becomes a matter of your ambition vs investment ...0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... mpic-games
This as well. Really not sure how this would work. Would we not end up with a load of velodromes and badminton courts half way up mountains? (Might be good for the sprints, not so good for distance events!)http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Daz555 wrote:Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
with you...0 -
But we would have to ask permission off Coca-Cola and MacDonalds though - the healthy eating sponsors. If they don't like the idea, then that's that.0
-
So we expected big changes in 2017 - three year licenses, new races etc. Now the association of cycling race organisers has come out against several of the changes and it all may just get ground into quagmire again. INRNG sums it up nicely as ever.
Within that context this reviewof the Economics of Professional Road Cycling is worth a read (I'm aware that the author is not everyone's cup of tea). The book itself is a classic academic publication and costs £114. But the bottom line is that it appears to debunk much of the Velon and other calls for cycling reform.
There isn't nearly the money available for redistribution that Velon and others might claim. The big sponsors aren't really interested and the smaller regional sponsors aren't really motivated by the globalisation effort. So an argument could be made that actually pro-cycling's best future is in just muddling along as it is... rather than franchises, new races, and all that other malarkey...0 -
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.0 -
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
Surely a pre-requisite for winter games is that snow or ice are involved in some way or other?0 -
Yes, it's a specific requirement. Cyclo cross has been pushed for the winter Olympics, but the snow and ice requirement has always stopped it.
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
Surely a pre-requisite for winter games is that snow or ice are involved in some way or other?0 -
I like watching cross, and even ocasionally "racing" it, but come on, its nowhere near big enough to be an Olympic sport. Whoever was picked for Belgoumn or Netherlands (±a few others maybe - remember that countries would be limited in numbers) would just run rings around everyone else.
It would tempt a few over from XCO between the summer games I suppose,We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
You're right of course; I should've said the snow and ice reuirement was 'one of the reasons' that stopped it.I like watching cross, and even ocasionally "racing" it, but come on, its nowhere near big enough to be an Olympic sport. Whoever was picked for Belgoumn or Netherlands (±a few others maybe - remember that countries would be limited in numbers) would just run rings around everyone else.
It would tempt a few over from XCO between the summer games I suppose,
Although, on the other hand, a number of winter Olympics sports are fairly marginal or dominated by a few countries anyway compared witht he Summer games.0 -
Yes, it's a specific requirement. Cyclo cross has been pushed for the winter Olympics, but the snow and ice requirement has always stopped it.
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
Surely a pre-requisite for winter games is that snow or ice are involved in some way or other?
There's about as much logic having cyclocross in the winter games as there is with rugby or football being included.0 -
Can somebody explain why track cycling gets squeezed in the summer Olympics (I'm thinking of the loss of the kilo, IP and Madison in recent years) the Velodrome is a purpose built venue and not capable of being used for anything else (unless the infield is supporting other sports which I can't remember happening)0
-
Can somebody explain why track cycling gets squeezed in the summer Olympics (I'm thinking of the loss of the kilo, IP and Madison in recent years) the Velodrome is a purpose built venue and not capable of being used for anything else (unless the infield is supporting other sports which I can't remember happening)
Wasn't the squeeze to balance the number of events for men and women?
BTW this thread is so OT UCI reforms but hey ho...0 -
I'm not sure I follow that argument. I'm not sure cyclocross needs to be included in the Winter Games, but surely it's more a winter sport (as in mostly practised in the winter months (say, November-February)) than rugby or football, which are played year round with a very brief summer stop?
Yes, it's a specific requirement. Cyclo cross has been pushed for the winter Olympics, but the snow and ice requirement has always stopped it.
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
Surely a pre-requisite for winter games is that snow or ice are involved in some way or other?
There's about as much logic having cyclocross in the winter games as there is with rugby or football being included.0 -
Careful, there is a large calendar of Cyclo X events in the USA and they only have to produce one World Champion (a la Greg Lemond) for it to become an attraction to their general public.I like watching cross, and even ocasionally "racing" it, but come on, its nowhere near big enough to be an Olympic sport. Whoever was picked for Belgoumn or Netherlands (±a few others maybe - remember that countries would be limited in numbers) would just run rings around everyone else.
Then watch the pressure come to have Cyclo Cross in the Olympics at Winter Time.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Track Cycling has brought it on themselves with their Indoor Air Conditioned velodromes being used in the main when the road season is over and now in competition with 6 day racing.
I'm old fashioned to remember the Track Cycle Racing season in GB starting on Good Friday on proper one Kilometer tarmac tracks and in full flow with late evening daylight hours until it finished in September.
The only hold these days for, Track Cycle Racing in summer meetings is the Olympics.Can somebody explain why track cycling gets squeezed in the summer Olympics (I'm thinking of the loss of the kilo, IP and Madison in recent years) the Velodrome is a purpose built venue and not capable of being used for anything else (unless the infield is supporting other sports which I can't remember happening)
With all these small Indoor Velodromes then "IF" it were moved to the Winter Olympics then a full program of events could return instead of these constant Time Trials.
I remember Chris Boardman against Jens Lehmann in the 1992 Olympic Pursuit Final and jumping out of my chair with excitement when Boardman caught the German.
Within a few months I realised it was not such a great feat because he had only caught him in 250 meters and not the normal (at that time) 500 meters.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Careful, there is a large calendar of Cyclo X events in the USA and they only have to produce one World Champion (a la Greg Lemond) for it to become an attraction to their general public.I like watching cross, and even ocasionally "racing" it, but come on, its nowhere near big enough to be an Olympic sport. Whoever was picked for Belgoumn or Netherlands (±a few others maybe - remember that countries would be limited in numbers) would just run rings around everyone else.
Then watch the pressure come to have Cyclo Cross in the Olympics at Winter Time.
What, you mean like "J-Pow" who goes to Belgium every year saying he's going to take it, like, super serious this year and finishes about 20th?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I'm not sure I follow that argument. I'm not sure cyclocross needs to be included in the Winter Games, but surely it's more a winter sport (as in mostly practised in the winter months (say, November-February)) than rugby or football, which are played year round with a very brief summer stop?
Yes, it's a specific requirement. Cyclo cross has been pushed for the winter Olympics, but the snow and ice requirement has always stopped it.
In general, yes, but particularly in the UK (which is particularly rubbish at winter sports)Track cycling losing its spot in the Summer games would hurt its profile.
Winter games are niche and have always been a shadow of the main event.
Surely a pre-requisite for winter games is that snow or ice are involved in some way or other?
There's about as much logic having cyclocross in the winter games as there is with rugby or football being included.
They're all on grass - they all occur during winter.
They could all, in theory, be played at the height of summer too.0
