• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Cutting GT Teams to Size? Pros and Cons:Debate

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Is it a good idea for smaller GT teams?

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
auscyclefan94 said:
keep it at 9. 21 teams is enough. with 9, if your team has a 1 or 2 falls you still have 7 riders which is a decent amount!

so 21 teams... 20 pro tour teams and 1 wildcard....

so a lot of deserving pro-contintal teams lose out...

im still with my idea of 8 riders, top 10 teams from each year qualify for the following year, then let the 11 remaining teams along with the pro continental battle it out on merit for the remaining spaces.. why should teams like esquatel, cofidis etc who regularly do nothing, continue to get tour places..
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
ak-zaaf said:
hehehe, please stay :D

Oh, but I will! I most definitely will.

As to the "dull" GT's this year, I actually found that the Giro, Vuelta and TdF kept me glued to the screen this year too, and the Blood Passports is a boon that makes the races more interesting than the doping-labs' verdict, weeks after the event. No more Landises, please!

Reducing the no. of riders per team is, of course (you see, Mellow, I'm not really, really an adversary), an option that can be explored. I fear, however, that a reduction inevitably would lead to teams specializing in set "roles", one for the yellow, one for the green, one for the polkadot jersey etc. Striking the balance between what's financially viable, interesting to a larger audience and credible as well as challenging for the riders themselves, is a tightrope balancing act for the organizers to perform. I have no set views on the matter.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
egtalbot said:
I am curious what a really good grand tour would look like to some of you who thought the ones this year were bad.
To some, it boils down to someone else winning.
 
dimspace said:
so 21 teams... 20 pro tour teams and 1 wildcard....

so a lot of deserving pro-contintal teams lose out...

im still with my idea of 8 riders, top 10 teams from each year qualify for the following year, then let the 11 remaining teams along with the pro continental battle it out on merit for the remaining spaces.. why should teams like esquatel, cofidis etc who regularly do nothing, continue to get tour places..

Yes.....this is an issue for me, too.
8 riders per team gives 24/25 teams a slot, without compromising safety.
Even allowing for the full quota of PT teams, 5 wildcards boosts the chances for PC teams to get a ride in one or more GTs.
Might well encourage a more flexible transfer market.
Might help teams to grow, especially those aspiring to the top rung.

Ben. I don't think who wins is an issue. We would probably end up the same contenders.
Most sports "tinker" with the rules, often to try and improve "marketability", through greater spectacle.

Seems opinion is split, as to whether having fewer riders would make a difference.
Certainly, I hadn't thought that less riders per team, would to add to more spcialisation from the teams.
Interesting.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
dimspace said:
im still with my idea of 8 riders, top 10 teams from each year qualify for the following year, then let the 11 remaining teams along with the pro continental battle it out on merit for the remaining spaces.. why should teams like esquatel, cofidis etc who regularly do nothing, continue to get tour places..

Dropping only one rider per squad opens up only two slots. It will not change the dynamics of the race. (thou I agree that many 'legacy' teams ought not have an automatic entry.)

If you want to change the dynamics, squads should be limited to 7, 6, or even 5. It would necessarily force the DS to target only one aspect - mountains, time trials, stages, sprinter, or GC - and force the riders to take the race seriously. Furthermore, it might spread out the top talent. (It could also dilute the field.) With only, say, 6 slots, do you think Pellizotti, Krueziger, and Nibali would stay with Liquigas knowing that Basso is the protected rider? Would Renshaw stay with Columbia if he had a chance to be the protected man in the leadout train for Fly V Australia? With 25+ teams however, the race would be quite chaotic, perhaps dangerously so.

As I said above, I'm not sold on the idea, but I'd like to see it tried. ASO is a big organization; instead of experimenting with race radio in the biggest event, how about trying limiting the field in Paris-Nice.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Just a thought:

what about reducing the size of the all teams to 8 (or 7) while rewarding combativity the next year. So only 1-4 teams are allowed to field 9, while the rest, based on previous year's combativity results, remain with 8.

Or conversely, if a team after week 1 is low in combativity, they have to eliminate one from the squad. Same for week 2, when you are low, you have to strip one member from the team. In some team's cases, they might end up with 2 riders less.

Agressive riding should be rewarded, and is generally inversely proportionate to the amount of money a team has (see wild card/french teams without a real GC contender). And most rich teams, focus on anything, but aggressive riding...
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Just a thought:

rewarding combativity........ So only 1-4 teams are allowed to field 9, while the rest, based on previous year's combativity results, remain with 8.

Or conversely, if a team after week 1 is low in combativity, they have to eliminate one (eliminate??? I was KIDDING when I mentioned the swift and merciless executions :)) from the squad. Same for week 2, when you are low, you have to strip one member from the team. (Who'd want to lose a member? I sure don't wanna lose mine) In some team's cases, they might end up with 2 riders less.(And some severely dissatisfied wives strewn wayside, I believe)

Agressive riding should be rewarded, and is generally inversely proportionate to the amount of money a team has (see wild card/french teams without a real GC contender). And most rich teams, focus on anything, but aggressive riding...

Why not send in the marines? If aggressive riding is to be rewarded I fear that the knuckle-duster will become standard issue. Remember Rollerball? James Caan as the next Lance? :D

Kidding aside, the no. of riders/team is the result of an equation with too many unknown variables for the average joe on this forum. Trying to make a guesstimate may be fun, and by all means, go ahead, but we won't make inroads on organizers' priorities.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Still can't see teams dropping numbers as effective. Just looking at this year's tour (which is pretty narrow I know) Columbia would still dominate sprints and Astana the overall. I still think distribution of talent is more important. Imagine the difference swapping Evans to Astana and Contador to Silence would have made.
I think more teams just leads to soft teams. I think the Protour can be blamed on this count. Why include Italian teams who are strong in the Giro but have no intent to send anyone worthy of note to the tour? Or imagine on the inclusion policy of the grandtours skil shimano took the place of LPR, duiqigiovanni or Acqua and sapone at the giro?
I like the stated aim of the Protour "best riders to the best races" but sometimes it trips over itself. Answers. Teams with fewer riders on the roster, but no compulsory invites? Salary caps? Invite at the discretion of the race organiser and teams need to submit rosters as part of their application?

I thought the giro was a great race, doping aside. The strongest guy had no team support, then 3rd through 5th raced agressively on the chance one of the top 2 messed up. Some great stage wins by continental teams...whats not to like?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
hektoren said:
Kidding aside, the no. of riders/team is the result of an equation with too many unknown variables for the average joe on this forum. Trying to make a guesstimate may be fun, and by all means, go ahead, but we won't make inroads on organizers' priorities.

I thought you were the self-proclaimed man of logic.

Silly assumption #1: the number of riders is the product of a mathematical formula - obviously kept in the ASO safe so that no one can crack this top secret code - which enables them to determine the optimum team composition.

-Is it an equation? It can't be tradition or even sheer randomness?
-Can it be that (traditional) team compositions (or in case equations exist, the equations) have become anachronisms?

Silly assumption #2: there are too many unknown variables AND they are unintelligible for average Joe forum visitors.

- First, how is your claim to knowledge about the 'unknown variables' reconcileable with your position as an average Joe forum visitor? Being an average Joe forum visitor, you would lack the capacity to understand the the equation that determines team size. If you fail to understand the equation (a priori), how would you thus know that there are actually 'too many unknown variables'?
-So are there too many unknown variables? Are there any unknown variables at all? Are they too difficult to understand? Are they really too difficult to understand for average Joes?

Silly assumption #3: Average Joe on this forum can't understand the elevated science behind the decisions for team compositions.

-Are you sure that the people in charge of determining team sizes, are, in fact, not average Joes?
-Are (all) forum visitors average Joes? Are some forum visitors intelligent enough to understand the supposed 'excess in unknown variables'?

Silly assumption #4: we are trying to change the behaviour of organizers.
-are we? am I? are others? are we just having fun? are we brain storming? are we truly uncapable of presenting ideas by posting them on a cycling forum?

;)
 
Sep 15, 2009
86
0
0
I would favor 8 riders for GT's and 7 riders for one day to one week races . 7 is a small number for a 3 week race where your almost assured of losing at least 1 and maybe more riders.
 
Jul 28, 2009
14
0
0
I have to confess that I am not really that interested in the GTs, I ought to be, but I am not. There are so many reasons for this that I don't know where to start... However I really can't see how making teams smaller is going to make it any more exciting and there is a risk that it could well make it even more random and boring for a non-expert TV viewer than it already is... If anything we need 10 teams of 20 not 29 teams of 7. Unlike top flight football teams cycling teams have no real history, culture or geographic focus. Because the teams are empty commercial constructs by sponsors most people support team leaders not teams (just look at the discussions on this forum if you want to see evidence for this). I got my family excited about the TdF this year but when AC and LA and MC failed to turn up for the VaEsp they all lost interest. It is all just too random to capture any non-expert's attention, which is a shame because everyone that rides a bike should be a bit interested in road racing, just as anyone that drives a car is able to name at least one Formula One team or driver; it is a shame that cycling can't achieve that (LA being the exception that proves the rule).
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
350Watts said:
I would favor 8 riders for GT's and 7 riders for one day to one week races . 7 is a small number for a 3 week race where your almost assured of losing at least 1 and maybe more riders.

with less riders, comes more responsibility though. I think riders who get the chance may be a little less inclined to just quit...
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Bala Verde said:
I thought you were the self-proclaimed man of logic.

Silly assumption #1
Silly assumption #2
Silly assumption #3
Silly assumption #4
;)

Well, silly assumptions or not. The financial side of things among the teams, sponsors and organizers is hardly open source info that we have access to. But the fact that we can't read their spreadsheets doesn't mean they don't exist. Some factors lend themselves to more or less qualified speculation, though.

To point out but a few of the variables that we " the average Joes" :p haven't touched upon yet, reducing the no. of riders and increasing the no. of teams, may foster more doping. With fragmentation you'll inevitably lose some transparency as to the various antidoping-regimes instituated in the teams. Allowing smaller "Pop'n-Mom kitchen-sink"-teams onboard, with less to lose and a big fat carrot dangling in front of them, ie. a sudden place in the spotlight, may tip the scale the wrong way.

Also, more teams would mean more sponsors, ensuring a loss of "exclusivity" for the big sponsors of today, and as a possible consequence some big sponsors might lose interest. It's a bit like increasing the no. of jerseys. (Jersey for best manners, anybody?? Tidiest team-bus?) Each team would get less exposure. Securing a spot in the big GT's is supposed to be a big thing. Exclusive. Prestigious. Trust the french, italians and spaniards to know about how these things work.

Increasing the no. of teams may also lead to more aggressive riding, and as a consequence, a more complex and dangerous workplace for the riders. Do we really need that to feel "excitement" in our armchairs? You saw the riders' reaction to banning the radios on some stages in TdF. Not what I'd call a great success, would you? And that was just a minor adjustment, trying to reward riders with wits enough to make wise on-the-spur decisions, and a deviation from the automaton on remote from the team-car of today.

More likely than not the number of riders per team as of today is the result of a long and evoulutionary process rather than a random number picked out of a hat. Changing the number without knowing the consequences would be plain stupid.
And to what end? Because some forum members have perceived that the three GT's weren't as exciting this year as they used to be? I'd question their perception rather than the GT's teamstructures, to be honest. See what could be done about TV coverage and commentary etc. Having the podium girls in wet T-shirts or whatever.:cool:
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
hektoren said:
Well, silly assumptions or not. The financial side of things among the teams, sponsors and organizers is hardly open source info that we have access to. But the fact that we can't read their spreadsheets doesn't mean they don't exist. Some factors lend themselves to more or less qualified speculation, though.

To point out but a few of the variables that we " the average Joes" :p haven't touched upon yet, reducing the no. of riders and increasing the no. of teams, may foster more doping. With fragmentation you'll inevitably lose some transparency as to the various antidoping-regimes instituated in the teams. Allowing smaller "Pop'n-Mom kitchen-sink"-teams onboard, with less to lose and a big fat carrot dangling in front of them, ie. a sudden place in the spotlight, may tip the scale the wrong way.

Also, more teams would mean more sponsors, ensuring a loss of "exclusivity" for the big sponsors of today, and as a possible consequence some big sponsors might lose interest. It's a bit like increasing the no. of jerseys. (Jersey for best manners, anybody?? Tidiest team-bus?) Each team would get less exposure. Securing a spot in the big GT's is supposed to be a big thing. Exclusive. Prestigious. Trust the french, italians and spaniards to know about how these things work.

Increasing the no. of teams may also lead to more aggressive riding, and as a consequence, a more complex and dangerous workplace for the riders. Do we really need that to feel "excitement" in our armchairs? You saw the riders' reaction to banning the radios on some stages in TdF. Not what I'd call a great success, would you? And that was just a minor adjustment, trying to reward riders with wits enough to make wise on-the-spur decisions, and a deviation from the automaton on remote from the team-car of today.

More likely than not the number of riders per team as of today is the result of a long and evoulutionary process rather than a random number picked out of a hat. Changing the number without knowing the consequences would be plain stupid.
And to what end? Because some forum members have perceived that the three GT's weren't as exciting this year as they used to be? I'd question their perception rather than the GT's teamstructures, to be honest. See what could be done about TV coverage and commentary etc. Having the podium girls in wet T-shirts or whatever.:cool:

I'd rather have the podium girls buck naked to be honest....