Changes to Pro Tour forthcoming?

[Bala Verde]

redirect from the general news section ((here - duplicate below):

UCI is said to change the rules of the Pro Tour

Eén van de belangrijkste veranderingen is dat alle wedstrijden mee zullen tellen voor het klassement. Voorheen was het zo dat alleen een selectie van grote wedstrijden meetelde, maar nu zijn er dus in alle wedstrijden punten te verdienen. Uiteraard zal er wel verschil zijn in de te behalen punten tussen grote en kleine koersen. De nieuwe ranking zal dus in grote lijnen gaan lijken op die van de website CQRanking.

Lit Transl: One of the most important changes will be that all races will count towards the GC. Previously, only a selection of the biggest races would be counted. Now however riders can gain points in all races. The difference is the amounts of points awarded for big v small races. The new ranking system appears to reflect the ranking system used at the CQranking website.

Daarnaast gaat de UCI meer waarde hechten aan de sportieve prestaties van de ProTour-ploegen, en dus minder aan bijvoorbeeld het financiële aspect. Het is namelijk de bedoeling dat de beste zestien ploegen uit de ranking automatisch startrecht zullen krijgen in de grote wedstrijden het jaar daarop.

Lit Transl: Furthermore, the UCI will value the athletic/sporting results over financial aspects. The objective is to automatically enroll the best 16 teams in the major races, the year after.

Other changes include:

-no more 4 year pro tour license terms, to guarantee the strength of teams (ie a pro-tour team in year 4 might have debilitated over time, but still maintain the same status)

-Pro Conti teams will start a season with 18 points. Every time they participate in a pro tour event, they will subtract 1 point. The reason given is that team like Cervelo can participate in almost all Pro-Tour races, while not meeting the full criteria.

-UCI will take 'off seasons' of riders into account for rankings by counting points for 2 yearsm instead of only the last year. This to protect riders' rankings against injuries.

 

[Francois the Postman]

[thanks Bala ]

Gosh, I hope this is indeed they way they go. A UCI plan that I like the sound of.

All systems have pros and cons, but the CQ ranking always made much more sense to me, and this seems not only to address that, but also tries to address a few other issues that seemed to be in-built spoilers.

16 teams on merit could make for some great racing all year round, every place at the front will count, and there will not only be a battle between the top teams, but between all those around the 16 team cut-off point too!

The switch-over year will be super annoying for those teams that aren't getting invites to scoring races to get them into that top 16 though, unless they have a fairer formula for deciding who qualifies for next year? If it starts next year with the current UCI wporld ranking points, Vacansoleil is screwed again next year for having been kept out of so many of the old-system-point-races and not being able to get in those 16.

I think like the 18-point continental team idea. It seems fair, as otherwise the always-in continental teams get none of the obligation drawbacks but all the point scoring opportunities. Haven't thought this fully through yet, but I think it is something that I am happy with too.

I guess the question remaining: how does this affect ASO's GTs and races? I assume they are backing this idea, or are they free to ignore this arrangement?

 

[Bala Verde]

For further clarification on th 18 point system:

In Spanish, translate as you wish:

9 PUNTOS: TOUR DE FRANCIA
6 PUNTOS: París-Niza, Tirreno-Adriático, Milán-San Remo, Tour de Flandes, París-Roubaix, Amstel Gold Race, Lieja-Bastoña-Lieja, Giro, Dauphiné, Tour de Suiza y Vuelta a España

3 PUNTOS: Volta a Catalunya, Gante-Wevelgem, Vuelta al País Vasco, Flecha Valona, Tour de Romandía, San Sebastián, Lombardía, Tour Down Under, Polonia, Vattenfall Classic, Eneco Tour, Plouay, Quebec y Montreal

EJEMPLO1: Un equipo que quiera centrarse en las clásicas y dispute Flandes, Roubaix y Amstel ya no tiene margen para correr ninguna otra prueba del ProTour.

EJEMPLO2: En el caso español, Xacobeo y Andalucía no tendrán graves problemas, puesto que pueden sumar 6 puntos de la Vuelta, 3 de País Vasco, 3 de Volta y 3 de San Sebastián, es decir, los 18 que son el máximo autorizado.

source: here

 

[Moondance]

For further clarification on th 18 point system:

In Spanish, translate as you wish:



source: here

Wow... This I do not like at all, if I undestand this correctly.

18 points for an entire season seems ridiculous. Take BMC for instance. They want Cadel to perform in the classics so they get starts in Amstel, Fleche and Liege.... That's 15 points right there, so no GTs whatsoever? Or will organizers still be able to give out wild cards, even if teams don't have any points left. This system would suffocate the smaller teams. And how does this system handle the arrival of new, big money teams? Do the riders that new teams sign 'carry over' their points to the new teams or something.

Can you somehow 'earn' more points from finishing highly in non-World Rankings races?

If i understand this system correctly (and Google Translate can leave a lot to be desired) I hate this idea.

 

[The Sheep]

Yes 18 points seems way too low, I would at least double that.

With that system Vacansoleil used around 50 points last year and it's not like they were invited to a lot of races.

 

[Bala Verde]

Wow... This I do not like at all, if I undestand this correctly.

18 points for an entire season seems ridiculous. Take BMC for instance. They want Cadel to perform in the classics so they get starts in Amstel, Fleche and Liege.... That's 15 points right there, so no GTs whatsoever? Or will organizers still be able to give out wild cards, even if teams don't have any points left. This system would suffocate the smaller teams. And how does this system handle the arrival of new, big money teams? Do the riders that new teams sign 'carry over' their points to the new teams or something.

Can you somehow 'earn' more points from finishing highly in non-World Rankings races?

If i understand this system correctly (and Google Translate can leave a lot to be desired) I hate this idea.

I had some of the same questions:

1) how will 'new' teams be ranked? Based on the combined rankings of riders they purchased, or do they start at zero as a team?

2) I think the 18 point system is/will be introduced in response to teams like cervelo, who do not meet the Pro Tour criteria and subsequently choose (?) not to obtain a Pro Tour license (costly, adminstratively, no added benefits?) while they are still invited on wildcards to all the races that matter and they wish to participate in. On the other hand, what's cervelos CQ ranking now? If they are within the top 16, they should automatically be invited regardless of their Pro-Tour status, right?

- So 16 teams are automatically invited to the TdF, based on their rankings, and then a whole bunch of small teams/non-pro tour teams/uncompetitive teams want to attend as well. They decide to put pay 9 points...

Who of those smaller teams will get in?

3) Big teams with a lot of riders, and a big budget can participate in a lot of races and collect a lot of combined points. Can smaller teams thus be competitive? Look at Brown with RAB. He races smaller races, collects points there, while another RAB squad is competitive in another race at the same time. Smaller teams, can they collect ranking-points simulatenously in 2 races, and if not, is that a disadvantage?

 

[Moondance]

To give an indication, BMC, under this system, would already be on 54 points :

TDU:3
Tirreno: 6
MSR: 6
Gent-Wevelgem: 3
Flanders: 6
Roubaix: 6
Amstel: 6
Fleche: 3
Liege: 6
Romandie: 3
Giro: 6

That's 3 times the 'allowed' ammount for a Pro-Cont team, and we're still only about halfway through the UCI World rankings races. Also they have the 9 point Tour coming up as well.

This system makes no sense.

 

[Moondance]

I had some of the same questions:

1) how will 'new' teams be ranked? Based on the combined rankings of riders they purchased, or do they start at zero as a team?

2) I think the 18 point system is/will be introduced in response to teams like cervelo, who do not meet the Pro Tour criteria and subsequently choose (?) not to obtain a Pro Tour license (costly, adminstratively, no added benefits?) while they are still invited on wildcards to all the races that matter and they wish to participate in. On the other hand, what's cervelos CQ ranking now? If they are within the top 16, they should automatically be invited regardless of their Pro-Tour status, right?

- So 16 teams are automatically invited to the TdF, based on their rankings, and then a whole bunch of small teams/non-pro tour teams/uncompetitive teams want to attend as well. They decide to put pay 9 points...

Who of those smaller teams will get in?

3) Big teams with a lot of riders, and a big budget can participate in a lot of races and collect a lot of combined points. Can smaller teams thus be competitive? Look at Brown with RAB. He races smaller races, collects points there, while another RAB squad is competitive in another race at the same time. Smaller teams, can they collect ranking-points simulatenously in 2 races, and if not, is that a disadvantage?

Both Cervelo and BMC are outside the CQ top-16 (22nd and 24th respectively). And both those teams have had the benefit of starting in plenty of ProTour races so far, where large amount of points can be won.

All your other questions are good, but I have no idea. Can only speculate.

 

[Francois the Postman]

18 points is to force teams to become a pro-tour team. If you want a large number of GTs and high profile races, and can invest in quality teams for them, you can (and ought to) pay the entire price for that status.

Under the current system, the number of pro-tour teams is limited because they hog slots on races, under the new system, you'd end up with more pro-tour teams that simply don't auto-qualify.

I'm all for it. Taking BMC as an example is a good one. If you have the ambition to race at that level, you sign up for the whole circus, not just the riders.

It could well be that 18 becomes a larger number, but I agree with the thinking behind it.

 

[Francois the Postman]

The other question is: who gets the points? The team (at the point of earning) or the rider?

Riders on teams don't earn the points by themselves, they have riders in support (insert frivolous BMC joke). So a team can help a rider to win a lot during a season, and then see all the points walk at the end of it when there is a transfer?

Impact which works two ways:
- if its the rider than winning makes you even more interesting to other parties, driving your price up (and by extension, others down).
- if it is the team, than you can let a successful rider go and claim the benefits for 2 years thereafter anyway!

A lot of nitty gritty details that have not been revealed and how those coins fall really change the way the system works.

 

[ScottyMuser]

It is an interesting idea, but iot does seem the UCI want to destory cycling in the traditional lands in favour of more money from Lanceand his chums in tghe States, or from Oil rich sheikhs in Dubai.

Teams should NOT be forced to compete at any 1 event, let alone a whole tour, as that is exactly what is wrong with the present system. Teams like Euskatel have to ride races they are just not interested in and their sponsors have even less interest in just because they are a pro tour team. A better system, IMO, is having at the end of every year a points based system where every team gets a certain number of points on a sliding scale to try and use up (ratyher than just 18) and have a wider definitio of points, rather then grouping the Giro and the Vuelta with suisse etc. Have ALL the teams like this, with the top, say, 10 teams guaranteed almost enough points to participate, if they wishk, in each race, and the teams then down to 20 being able to compete in, say 35-50% of 4races, with maybe 1/2 Grand tours and a couple of classics. For new teams, have an average amounjt allowing entry into, say 50% of classics, and a few 1 week stage races, but no Grand Tours or monuments.

The one thing thatg seems to be good about this is the binning of the ToC as a Pro Tour event (at least accoprding to the points systems), as it is not mentioned as a race where you would need to spend points. Rather amusingly, the Quebec and Montreal are, as well as Vattenfall and TDU(!)

 

[Francois the Postman]

The other question is: who gets the points? The team (at the point of earning) or the rider?

Riders on teams don't earn the points by themselves, they have riders in support (insert frivolous BMC joke). So a team can help a rider to win a lot during a season, and then see all the points walk at the end of it when there is a transfer?

Impact which works two ways:
- if its the rider than winning makes you even more interesting to other parties, driving your price up (and by extension, others down).
- if it is the team, than you can let a successful rider go and claim the benefits for 2 years thereafter anyway!

A lot of nitty gritty details that have not been revealed and how those coins fall really change the way the system works.

Excuses for reviving this thread with quoting my own question from a few months back, but I have seem this very question pop up a few times in threads at the moment. Logically since it's a new system and we are in the middle of the transfer season.

And whichever way it falls, it has a big impact with tons of consequences.

So does anyone know the answer for sure? When a rider transfers, who keeps the GC points, the rider or the team?

 

[kurtinsc]

I don't know... but I'd guess that for next year's races, the qualifying is based on the rules in place today.

So the teams get the points, not the riders.

What these possible changes would impact is how points are earned to qualify for 2012 races based on 2011 results I'd think.

 

[ingsve]

Excuses for reviving this thread with quoting my own question from a few months back, but I have seem this very question pop up a few times in threads at the moment. Logically since it's a new system and we are in the middle of the transfer season.

And whichever way it falls, it has a big impact with tons of consequences.

So does anyone know the answer for sure? When a rider transfers, who keeps the GC points, the rider or the team?

The way I understand it is like this:

For the purpose of knowing what teams will be given a guaranteed spot in next years historical races they go by the end ranking of the previous years PT ranking. Or in other words, it does not matter if a rider changes teams.

On the other hand, when determining what teams will get a renewed PT license the following year they will be looking at the strength of the team going into the next year. So in this case if team X wants a PT license they will get the benefit of signing a new good rider. This criteria will go back two years. This also means that a team that loses it's top rides and that is at the same time up for renewal of their license won't be able to benefit from the results of the rider they lost.

Anyway, that's how I see it but it's far from clear if this is correct or not.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Ingsve, I roughly understood the same, but am still not sure that all the things I heard are in place, and are not simply proposal rumours that ended up amended after the UCI free-birds (ASO et al) had their say.

On the other hand, when determining what teams will get a renewed PT license the following year they will be looking at the strength of the team going into the next year. So in this case if team X wants a PT license they will get the benefit of signing a new good rider. This criteria will go back two years. This also means that a team that loses it's top rides and that is at the same time up for renewal of their license won't be able to benefit from the results of the rider they lost.

I have found a confirmation for this second part in a UCI press release.

To quote....

the calculation of the teams' sporting values has been completely revised. This will now be based on the values of riders contracted by a team for the following year. These values are calculated from the riders' results over the two previous seasons. The values will be calculated on the basis of the UCI World Ranking,

I can't find any news on how many riders in the squad are counted (top 5? 15?) though.


I also can't find much on the new race and stage race entry system. Just a lot of speculative pre-agreement proposals.

I'm reasonably sure we do indeed have the top 17 ranked teams as automatic qualifications for all "historic" non-pro-tour races, but I'm even more curious to know if that 18 point wild card system has survived.

If it has, how would that work out for the Schlecks' new team for instance? They would obviously hope to be invited to the sort of events that BMC was this year, but BMC would have spent its 18 point allowance well before they reached the TdF. And if the TdF would gobble up half of that, Pro Continental French teams that are getting semi-automatic invites to prestigious French races, pleasing fans and sponsors, would face seriously reduced schedules for the rest of year. I can see hat they are trying to do, I just can't add it up to something that is workable.

I'd imagine that the run on expiring 18 Pro-Tour licenses would be getting pretty intense, with several teams wanting to get into it too, if there was an 18 point Wild Card race restriction (BMC, Cervelo, Schlecks, BBox, Cofidis, ). And with names like that challenging for wild cards, it will be scraps only for the rest.

I'm actually curious how many new big aspiration teams we would see emerge in 2012 and beyond if the prospect of ProTour status would be dim. Like I said, how would it work out for that new Team Luxembourg if they would be stuck as a Pro Continental one? Not only would you be forced to say no to invites, you actually are entering less races to get those points in for next year too, the vicious circle that Vacansoleil is trapped in?

I'm not sure if I am overly happy with the way new teams spring up at the moment, but I'd also be very wary of creating a technical disincentive for new blood with serious ambitions who want to give star riders a more supportive home.

Would Cadel have moved to BMC if that 18 point system was in place? This year they had to ride themselves into the picture to get a Tour invite. But by doing so, they would actually have blown their Wild Card budget. It seems you are setting up a catch 21 for new teams, leaving the good riders almost certainly to be divided between the usual few only.

I wish someone with better and more detailed info would write a good article on all the changes, and its implications. They are huge changes (team status on the UCI side and race entry qualifiers on the organisers' side), with far reaching implications for riders and teams. And here we are, on the cycling forum, with the transfer rumours and team alterations flying in fast. And a lack of detail and clarity has us fumbling around for best guesstimations of what it all means for next year.

A clear front page article would be nice - hint hint.

 

[ingsve]

Ya, from what we know it seems that being pro tour will be essential for everyone.

My guess is that the Schleck team will be in the first row to get a PT license. They wouldn't risk it if there was a chance they would be left out of the top races. It's more likely that they'll wait a year and go to Radio Shack in the mean time rather than forming the team without a good chance at the PT.

 

[avanti]

................I guess the question remaining: how does this affect ASO's GTs and races? I assume they are backing this idea, or are they free to ignore this arrangement?

Based on the last several years it appears that ASO can pretty much do what it wants. What rider would refuse to ride in the TdF even if UCI outlwed participation? It could result in riders breaking free of the UCI and the UCI knows it.

...............
The one thing thatg seems to be good about this is the binning of the ToC as a Pro Tour event ............

What does 'binning' mean?

 

[Cerberus]

So does this also impact how the WC spots are awarded, or is that effed up 2 tier system kept in place?

 

[luckyboy]

What does 'binning' mean?

'Getting rid of'


Haven't seen much speculation regarding which teams will be in ProTour 2011. There'll be 15 teams (if the Schleck's team comes together) with Euskaltel dropping down to Pro Continental and Caisse & Milram leaving the sport..

AG2R La Mondiale
Astana
FDJ
HTC-Columbia
Garmin-Transitions
Geox-Footon-Servetto
Katusha
Lampre-Farnese
Liquigas-Doimo
Luxembourg Team
Omega Pharma-Lotto
Quick Step
Rabobank
Radioshack
Saxo Bank-Sunguard
Sky

3 places up for grabs then. Vacansoleil are apparently applying, so we have Cervelo, BMC, Bbox, Cofidis left as the other big teams.

Any news/views on this?

 

[Mambo95]

The one thing thatg seems to be good about this is the binning of the ToC as a Pro Tour event (at least accoprding to the points systems)

The ToC has never been a Pro Tour event.

 

[ingsve]

'Getting rid of'


Haven't seen much speculation regarding which teams will be in ProTour 2011. There'll be 15 teams (if the Schleck's team comes together) with Euskaltel dropping down to Pro Continental and Caisse & Milram leaving the sport..

AG2R La Mondiale
Astana
FDJ
HTC-Columbia
Garmin-Transitions
Geox-Footon-Servetto
Katusha
Lampre-Farnese
Liquigas-Doimo
Luxembourg Team
Omega Pharma-Lotto
Quick Step
Rabobank
Radioshack
Saxo Bank-Sunguard
Sky

3 places up for grabs then. Vacansoleil are apparently applying, so we have Cervelo, BMC, Bbox, Cofidis left as the other big teams.

Any news/views on this?

Well, some teams will be up for renewal of their license as well.

These are the teams that already have a license for next year. The year in brackets is the year thier current license expires.

AG2R La Mondiale (2012)
Garmin-Transitions (2011)
Quick Step (2011)
Rabobank (2012)
Radioshack (2013)
Saxo Bank-Sunguard (2011)
Team Sky (2013)
Omega Pharma-Lotto (2011)
Lampre-Farnese (2013)

So that leaves 9 open places in the Pro Tour with the following likely candidates:

Astana
FDJ
HTC-Columbia
Geox-Footon-Servetto
Katusha
Liquigas-Doimo
Luxembourg Team
Vacansoleil
Cervelo Test Team
BMC
Bbox
Cofidis
Saur Sojasun (?)
Skil-Shimano (?)
Androni Giocattoli - Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni (?)
ISD-Neri (?)
Caisse d'Epargne (should they get a sponsor)
Team Milram (should they get a sponsor)

The teams that are up for renewal have a clear advantage since they probably have all criteria met already so their only worry is if other teams can recruit better rides to pass them on the sporting criteria.

Since the strength of the team rider wise will be measured going into the season it is possible for the lower teams to recruit their way passed the established teams so we'll have to have a close look at the transfer market to know what teams will be gaining or losing strength.

 

[BroDeal]

These changes sound suspiciously like the UCI trying to go back to the system that existed before the Pro Tour but retaining Pro Tour team status so that a large fee can be charged.

 

[ingsve]

These changes sound suspiciously like the UCI trying to go back to the system that existed before the Pro Tour but retaining Pro Tour team status so that a large fee can be charged.

Well, not exactly but half similar I suppose. In the old TT1 and TT2 system you would always have the bottom TT1 teams moving down and the top TT2 teams moving up so any team was in danger if they had a bad year. Now at least there is a little more time to settle in for a team that has their license secured for a few years and they are only really in danger when they are about to renew the license.