• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

Does BMC Have a Team?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
Saying that their performances have been in line with what was required is assuming that there was a requirement. As we've learnt from the omission of Vacansoleil and Saur, there was no 'racing requirement' on BMC whatsoever, otherwise it would be quite clear that Vacansoleil would have had the spot. That's not to say whether it's right or wrong that they got the invite, but it's misleading to say their performances have been in line with what was required, when nothing short of Cadel Evans cutting the head off Christian Prudhomme's son for stepping on his dog was going to get Vacansoleil or Saur invited, because the ASO lied through their teeth to them about their chances.

Your referencing their inclusion as a wildcard this year. I'm talking about the automatic qualification for teams next year.

Wildcards (in most sports) aren't based on performance as much as marketing. Wildcards to golf tournaments are given not to the most "deserving" golfer that didn't automatically get in, but rather are given to golfers who would drive fan interest. That's how Michell Wie got invites into PGA events. She drew fan interest.

Riders like Cadel Evans, Lance Armstrong and Thor Hushovd drive fan interest. It really doesn't matter what their teams do... it's in the ASO's financial interest to bring these guys.

This year was bad because the teams getting in automatically were NOT in any way the best performers. It was based on the old agreement with the UCI about teams registered with the Pro Tour. So we had deserving teams without automatic invites.

But 2011 has a set method for determining who gets in... the top 17 teams in the pro-tour rankings. BMC is doing well in that area. Once again, when the wildcards are assigned after those 17 teams... it will be based on money, not performance. The performance side (in theory) was used to select the 17 automatic teams. The wildcards are about money for the race. You likely won't see Vasconelli there again... because the ASO will choose french teams left out ahead of them.

I don't really think the system is very good... but it is the system that is being used and everyone knows how it's scored. Hard to fault a team that is scoring well by the rules provided despite not performing as well as hoped. It does speak to some wise planning (especially on Cadel's schedule) to try to maximize those points.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
theyoungest said:
No, I think Vacansoleil would rather have a fair system of getting into GT's, and a fair ranking which isn't only based on whatever the UCI considers to be "important" races, such as the immensely prestigious Tour Down Under. I don't think Vacansoleil would want to swap with BMC in terms of racing so far this year--they're rightfully proud of what they've shown so far in the classics.

Well, I'm sure they would have liked to win every race they entered too. But given BMC's position (less success, but a very good shot at riding the GT's next year) or Vasco's position (more success, but very little shot at riding the GT's next year) as the ONLY two options... I think they might choose BMC's situation.

I could be wrong... I don't know how highly they value riding in those GT's. It sounds to me like they put a pretty high value on them though and aren't happy about not getting a shot.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
The Sheep said:
BMC weren't invited because of their ranking anyways. They were invited because of Cadel Evans.

This year, BMC was invited because of Cadel's draw. It was purely a financial decision.

Next year, BMC will likely qualify automatically. This is because of the ranking... and objective measure even if it isn't a very good one.

Vasco will have to try for a wildcard again... most likely competing with a lot of French teams that automatically got bids this year. They'll have even less of a chance I think.


I like the general idea (giving the automatic bids to higher ranking teams and letting the races use wildcards to invite teams that help their race financially). I agree the ranking system isn't the best... but I can't blame BMC for scoring well in the ranking that is being used. Everyone else knew how the points would be scored as well.

I don't think you can change teh way the game is scored for this season though. I support a change to a more inclusive system that looks at other races... but not a retroactive change.
 
I see a lot of what is fundamentally wrong with the sport, has been posted in this debate.
I also do not see a change in the future, rather more teams placing an emphasis on strategic rider purchases, for quick and easy access to major events.
As a result, performance "value" will continue to be downgraded.
 
BeachBum said:
...with Thor being an exception last year, and I'd argue that Flecha has met expectations so far for Sky this year.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Sastre did not meet expectations last year.

Ballan and Hincapie have been underperforming in what should have been their time of year, and the jury is still out on Evans and Wiggo.

He was third at the Giro and won two stages. What a disappointment:rolleyes:
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
I see a lot of what is fundamentally wrong with the sport, has been posted in this debate.
I also do not see a change in the future, rather more teams placing an emphasis on strategic rider purchases, for quick and easy access to major events.
As a result, performance "value" will continue to be downgraded.

How do you judge value though? That's what I struggle with.

I agree with the idea that every race should count for something... even if it's just a point for winning. But I don't want a scenario that values say... an overall GC win at the Tour of Turkey above a 10th place at Paris-Nice. To be perfectly honest... 10th place at P-N is a lot bigger accomplishment.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
theyoungest said:
No, I think Vacansoleil would rather have a fair system of getting into GT's, and a fair ranking which isn't only based on whatever the UCI considers to be "important" races, such as the immensely prestigious Tour Down Under. I don't think Vacansoleil would want to swap with BMC in terms of racing so far this year--they're rightfully proud of what they've shown so far in the classics.

A "fair system" of getting into GT's? Easier said than done lol.

Also, isn't it the ASO/TdF/BizOwners that pick the WildCards?
Not the UCI right?

Seems like next year will have a whole new selection process:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vaughters-and-aso-examine-tour-de-france-selection-policy
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
How do you judge value though? That's what I struggle with.

I agree with the idea that every race should count for something... even if it's just a point for winning. But I don't want a scenario that values say... an overall GC win at the Tour of Turkey above a 10th place at Paris-Nice. To be perfectly honest... 10th place at P-N is a lot bigger accomplishment.

Money. Actually might not be a bad way to go. Base the rankings on winnings in a year.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
karlboss said:
Money. Actually might not be a bad way to go. Base the rankings on winnings in a year.

It's an interesting idea... but I think the prizes would have to adjust.

Right now it's 9,200 euro for winning the tour of Oman, 16,000 euro for winning Paris-Nice, 30,000 for Paris-Roubaix... and 450,000 for winning the Tour.

Finishing second in the KOM competition at the Tour pays 15,000 euro... just 1000 less then winning Paris-Nice. I think that would even further bias things toward the TDF.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
It's an interesting idea... but I think the prizes would have to adjust.

Right now it's 9,200 euro for winning the tour of Oman, 16,000 euro for winning Paris-Nice, 30,000 for Paris-Roubaix... and 450,000 for winning the Tour.

Finishing second in the KOM competition at the Tour pays 15,000 euro... just 1000 less then winning Paris-Nice. I think that would even further bias things toward the TDF.

Heaven forbid your performance at the TDF influences your entry to the TDF.
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
Visit site
TdF Director Prudhomme noted when he announced the teams that the prestige of having the rainbow jersey fighting for the podium was the driver of BMC's selection. Does he think Cadel will win, probably not, but for the first time in a number of years the rainbow jersey is likely to be a protagonist on the big stages in the tour. He accepts that there is unlikely to be a swarm of BMC jerseys protecting Cadel, but that's nothing different from the Lotto days.

So the choice between having the World Champion competing on the Tourmalet, or a team whose only contribution may be to put themselves in doomed breaks every stage of the first week ultimately deliver no wins (Skil-Shimano in 2009 anybody?) was probably pretty easy.

As for teams clocking up plenty of wins early, as Cavendish noted this week:
"If I wanted to just win races I wouldn't ride every ProTour race," Cavendish told The Guardian. "If I wanted to get sh!t small wins, I'd race sh!t small races."
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,644
2
0
Visit site
PCutter said:
TdF Director Prudhomme noted when he announced the teams that the prestige of having the rainbow jersey fighting for the podium was the driver of BMC's selection. Does he think Cadel will win, probably not, but for the first time in a number of years the rainbow jersey is likely to be a protagonist on the big stages in the tour. He accepts that there is unlikely to be a swarm of BMC jerseys protecting Cadel, but that's nothing different from the Lotto days.


I can respect this reasoning, unfortunately it was just a little harsh on vasc.

As for this..

PCutter said:
As for teams clocking up plenty of wins early, as Cavendish noted this week:
"If I wanted to just win races I wouldn't ride every ProTour race," Cavendish told The Guardian. "If I wanted to get sh!t small wins, I'd race sh!t small races."

well that's just bullsh!t. His comments were out of line and regarding griepel anyway... a lot of vasc. performances are very good. Cavendish couldn't have won K-B-K this year if his life depended on it - that was a truly epic race which took courage and heart (maybe the best race i've seen this year tbh) and not his team delivering him on a platter.

then they also got results in E3, flanders and P-R. And in terms of flanders bmc almost got the same points as vasc, when leukemans attacked and stayed away for his placing and hincapie simply placed in a larger group... seems fair.

so yeah, that quote certainly doesn't apply.
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
Visit site
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
so yeah, that quote certainly doesn't apply.

Yep, fair call. I was thinking more with regards to BMC's lack of any wins - they may have been able to clock up a "win" in a smaller race if a win was all someone wanted - than any slight on Vasc's performances to date. I've thought Leukemans in particular has been pretty impressive from what I've seen on Eurosport. Vasc have been very unlucky that they're trying to enter the same year that a team with a 7 time champion needs a wild card...and one with a WC...and one with the green jersey holder....
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
Boeing said:
Cadel should have gone to Garmin
they never had a team IMHO and if Cadel thought he was too easily and too often isolated in the mtn stages last season then this year's tour will be solitary confinement. with or with out suspensions.

He would have to be very stupid to go to garmin. how would of they supported farrar (no 3 best sprinter in the world imo) and evans and vandevelde who both have goals at the tour?

BMC's classics team would be given an E in my opinion but Quickstep's would be given an F. They were pretty hopeless!
 
auscyclefan94 said:
He would have to be very stupid to go to garmin. how would of they supported farrar (no 3 best sprinter in the world imo) and evans and vandevelde who both have goals at the tour?

The team would have supported the GC rider who proved to be the strongest. Riders like Vandevelde would have provided the support in the mountains that Evans needs. Now he is once again on a team without anyone to support him.

auscyclefan94 said:
BMC's classics team would be given an E in my opinion but Quickstep's would be given an F. They were pretty hopeless!

Say what? Boonen was the second strongest rider in RVV and P-R. The only thing that was going to stop Super Spartacus from winning both was bad luck, which did not happen. If it had Boonen would have been the one to capitalize on it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
The team would have supported the GC rider who proved to be the strongest. Riders like Vandevelde would have provided the support in the mountains that Evans needs. Now he is once again on a team without anyone to support him.
Yes but having the two focuses in my opinion doesn't work. It divides a team and the riders will be ****ed after the first week who have supported Farrar.
BroDeal said:
Say what? Boonen was the second strongest rider in RVV and P-R. The only thing that was going to stop Super Spartacus from winning both was bad luck, which did not happen. If it had Boonen would have been the one to capitalize on it.

0 wins... Personally don't think Boonen was the 2nd strongest even though he positioned badly and got caught out!For a cobbled classics team where there whole season is almost based around, that is very dissapointing.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
I would have thought it was obvious that Boonen was the second strongest rider in both Flanders and P-R.

The difference is that he was everywhere in the race between attacking and trying to chace (with no team support - ignoring Devolder's temporary presence in the chase)

Whereas George did his typical ride in a classic. He was in the rear of the group through all the sectors and then when the attack went, he sat at the back of the chase and didn't contribute. He raced for a place rather than the win and was completely isolated (where was the next BMC rider in P-R) and ended up coming in with the dregs of the lead group.

Point is, Boonen was clearly very strong but Quickstep is not an example of a strong team compared to BMC. They both did pretty badly as teams.
 
Were it not for Leukemans, Vacansoliel would have zero points under the UCI's ranking system.
Yet, besides a dozen podium spots, they have won 5 races, this year, including Kuurne-B-Kuurne!
They have also won the GC of an ASO stage race.

For all of that, the UCI give them zilch.

40 times less that what Cadel earned for his TDU.

The UCI is a PT ranking is only applicable to teams with unrestricted access to scoring races.

In a realistic ranking system, such as CQ, the true measure of BMC's "success" becomes evident.

As for Kurtinsc's argument about targetting races for automatic Tour qualifcation.
It's handy to be given two GT invites in which to score a few points towards that goal.
Something that is being denied to Vacansoleil.

This system reeks of the old boys club "members only" mentality.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
Were it not for Leukemans, Vacansoliel would have zero points under the UCI's ranking system.
Yet, besides a dozen podium spots, they have won 5 races, this year, including Kuurne-B-Kuurne!
They have also won the GC of an ASO stage race.

For all of that, the UCI give them zilch.

40 times less that what Cadel earned for his TDU.

The UCI is a PT ranking is only applicable to teams with unrestricted access to scoring races.

In a realistic ranking system, such as CQ, the true measure of BMC's "success" becomes evident.

As for Kurtinsc's argument about targetting races for automatic Tour qualifcation.
It's handy to be given two GT invites in which to score a few points towards that goal.
Something that is being denied to Vacansoleil.

This system reeks of the old boys club "members only" mentality.

Zero isn't 40 times less then Cadel's TDU numbers... it's an infinite amount less. It's that whole "divide by zero" thing... math doesn't like it.

And while it's true about the GT's... there is also a point there about targeting the races that count with thier best rider to this point (which is how we're judging BMC and Vasco right now). I don't think it's a huge stretch to say BMC might have been able to win a smaller race or two had they targeted them with their top riders... especially Cadel.

But instead, they pretty much have held Cadel out for races that count for pro-tour points. Would we really judge BCM differently had Cadel ridden and won the Etoile de Besseges instead of finishing top 5 at the TDU?
 
BMC Team

No Evans no Giro or Tour as others have stated. BMC will be better next year ? Evans needs a team now. If Hincapie, Burghardt and Ballan were supposed to be riding the Tour of California, Ballan probably won't now, but who will Evans have with him at the Giro as both races are on at the same time ?

I don't like saying it but I think once again Evans has chased the money. He should have left Lotto three years ago. There is a team pursuit in the Giro. Cannot see BMC having much hope in that. As for the invites, many teams only have one rider that consistently scores points. Boonen for Quickstep, Sanchez for Euskadel, Valverde scores most of the points for Caisse. Gilbert for Lotto. Cunego for Lampre. Evans for BMC ?

Evans will have a good team when he is ready to retire. I cannot believe some of the decisions he makes.
 

TRENDING THREADS