akashra
Eats Squid
I guess I need to weigh in on this, but first off I also need to be clear that my view on things doesn't necessarily mean things will change to match things. I'm perfectly capable of running and managing a system I don't entirely agree with implementing.
The major issues I have with the categories are as follows:
1. I get the impression that there's a lot of people out there who expect wins and podiums to be delivered to them on a silver platter. They want the competition to be so diluted that you end up with a very niche category (eg, solo 40+ singlespeed as an example) just so they can feel the 'achievement' of getting a podium when all they've really done is beat three others in this very niche class. That's not competition, and that's not achievement. While achievement to some can be a personal goal of just finishing a race, no-one needs to give those people a category just for them to race in. To me, a healthy sized category is around/at least 25 entrants.
2. Organisers are regularly complained to about presentations taking too long, and people lose interest by the time you get to the 10th category. Especially since we work in reverse order of prestige, by the time we get to Elite Men, it's not uncommon to find the disrespectful situation where the placegetters in the minor categories have got their prizes, so they've nicked off. It's not behavior I'm particularly proud of seeing.
Reducing the presentation time was definitely a factor in the discussion of grades that were held in 2010, and will once again be the case in 2011.
3. While there are some categories that have a reasonable number of teams event-to-event, we find very few have a return rate. This is an item of right up there on my priorities to address, as the series is that, a series - no longer a bunch of races just lumped together hap-hazardously. From all of a sport development, a participants sense of achievement, and a financial point of view, we need to focus on having people return to the sport.
While we absolutely want newcomers to come along and just do what they intend to be a 'one-off' event, we also want them to come back. At the worst case if they don't come back to a VES event, we want them out on bikes somewhere, at other events - that's still a win for the sport.
4. In reality, for a six hour event, there's very little difference in the ability of a team of three and a team of two. Especially at the pointy end, riders aren't really dropping much time on their final laps in teams of two, and teams of three have a slight disadvantage - they have to find three riders of similar ability and speed, not just two.
For exactly the reason riderideride has pointed out, those teams, even though often the same riders, end up not being a part of the 'series' as such.
One option we're considering is to drop the concept of specific size teams for the purpose of series points. While we *may* still recognise the winning 3 man team, 2 man team, mixed pair, mixed three etc, under this proposal what would instead happen for the series is it would just be reduced to 'Male teams', 'Mixed teams' etc. In this way, teams would be able to race two man at some races, three at others, etc, and still go for a series place.
5.
Most importantly, the points system will change for 2011, if not for all categories, at the least for the Solo men.
Whereas currently it is 80, 65, 55, 48, 43 etc, with Masters and Elite as separate categories, the two will now come under one umbrella, like the way U23s is under the UCI system, for example. The points system I've tested would instead become 160, 145, 130, 120, 110, 103, 96...
This might look complicated, so the simplest way to explain it is that it's the same MTBA system, but doubled, with the same points gap across two places instead of one.
This will achieve a number of things:
- It will better reward riders who frequent the series and place outside the top 5-10
- It will better reward riders in large fields - fields of 30 riders, small to average for the VES, are not well suited to the current points system.
I've already put my foot down and said that in addition to Masters, that Veterans and Sport (20-29) will be recognised - the age discrimination that goes on supporting the Masters categories (a field usually no larger than 50% of the non-masters riders) can no longer continue. The fallacy that a Masters rider can not compete at the pointy end is exactly that - Brad Davies finished third overall in the series this year in Elite Men, despite being eligible for Masters. Past riders such as Kerry Ryan and Peter Pink are also examples of how this fable of older riders being uncompetitive is nothing more than a myth.
I don't know if this clarifies anything or everything, but it's just some things to consider. None of this means decisions are set in stone - the rule-book is still being written, and the involved clubs do have a certain amount of say each in how the series is conducted.
So, TLDR? Yes, there will be changes. Yes, some people will complain and be unhappy, while others will get on with their lives and continue to enjoy both racing and riding.
The major issues I have with the categories are as follows:
1. I get the impression that there's a lot of people out there who expect wins and podiums to be delivered to them on a silver platter. They want the competition to be so diluted that you end up with a very niche category (eg, solo 40+ singlespeed as an example) just so they can feel the 'achievement' of getting a podium when all they've really done is beat three others in this very niche class. That's not competition, and that's not achievement. While achievement to some can be a personal goal of just finishing a race, no-one needs to give those people a category just for them to race in. To me, a healthy sized category is around/at least 25 entrants.
2. Organisers are regularly complained to about presentations taking too long, and people lose interest by the time you get to the 10th category. Especially since we work in reverse order of prestige, by the time we get to Elite Men, it's not uncommon to find the disrespectful situation where the placegetters in the minor categories have got their prizes, so they've nicked off. It's not behavior I'm particularly proud of seeing.
Reducing the presentation time was definitely a factor in the discussion of grades that were held in 2010, and will once again be the case in 2011.
3. While there are some categories that have a reasonable number of teams event-to-event, we find very few have a return rate. This is an item of right up there on my priorities to address, as the series is that, a series - no longer a bunch of races just lumped together hap-hazardously. From all of a sport development, a participants sense of achievement, and a financial point of view, we need to focus on having people return to the sport.
While we absolutely want newcomers to come along and just do what they intend to be a 'one-off' event, we also want them to come back. At the worst case if they don't come back to a VES event, we want them out on bikes somewhere, at other events - that's still a win for the sport.
4. In reality, for a six hour event, there's very little difference in the ability of a team of three and a team of two. Especially at the pointy end, riders aren't really dropping much time on their final laps in teams of two, and teams of three have a slight disadvantage - they have to find three riders of similar ability and speed, not just two.
For exactly the reason riderideride has pointed out, those teams, even though often the same riders, end up not being a part of the 'series' as such.
One option we're considering is to drop the concept of specific size teams for the purpose of series points. While we *may* still recognise the winning 3 man team, 2 man team, mixed pair, mixed three etc, under this proposal what would instead happen for the series is it would just be reduced to 'Male teams', 'Mixed teams' etc. In this way, teams would be able to race two man at some races, three at others, etc, and still go for a series place.
5.
Most importantly, the points system will change for 2011, if not for all categories, at the least for the Solo men.
Whereas currently it is 80, 65, 55, 48, 43 etc, with Masters and Elite as separate categories, the two will now come under one umbrella, like the way U23s is under the UCI system, for example. The points system I've tested would instead become 160, 145, 130, 120, 110, 103, 96...
This might look complicated, so the simplest way to explain it is that it's the same MTBA system, but doubled, with the same points gap across two places instead of one.
This will achieve a number of things:
- It will better reward riders who frequent the series and place outside the top 5-10
- It will better reward riders in large fields - fields of 30 riders, small to average for the VES, are not well suited to the current points system.
I've already put my foot down and said that in addition to Masters, that Veterans and Sport (20-29) will be recognised - the age discrimination that goes on supporting the Masters categories (a field usually no larger than 50% of the non-masters riders) can no longer continue. The fallacy that a Masters rider can not compete at the pointy end is exactly that - Brad Davies finished third overall in the series this year in Elite Men, despite being eligible for Masters. Past riders such as Kerry Ryan and Peter Pink are also examples of how this fable of older riders being uncompetitive is nothing more than a myth.
I don't know if this clarifies anything or everything, but it's just some things to consider. None of this means decisions are set in stone - the rule-book is still being written, and the involved clubs do have a certain amount of say each in how the series is conducted.
So, TLDR? Yes, there will be changes. Yes, some people will complain and be unhappy, while others will get on with their lives and continue to enjoy both racing and riding.
