Let's discuss on enhancing the system of cycling's top tier.

[aahmadhu]

After seeing the announcement of the 18 ProTeams, many arguments came out on many issues which include; the license criteria of the teams, wether the teams announced actually qualified or not; the UCI World Tour and the point system itself; and also the core structure of the ProTeams and Pro Continental leagues.

I myself am disappointed with the UCI's inability to come out with a systematic structure of this sport's top tier, which should address the problems plaguing the entire current system.

So, let's discuss, share and analyse exclusively. Here, I want to ask this forum's opinions on how it should look like. I mean, if you are in the UCI's seat, what would you do regarding solution to current problems, new ideas, new system, anything. Please discuss.

I'm no expert but below is the list of issues that I think we should be discuss upon;

1) the main core of the league's top tier itself; i.e number of teams, the "who's qualify & who's not" question regarding top teams and 2nd tier teams, differentiation between top races and 2nd tier races, etc.

2) the relation between races, teams, riders and points.

3) newly formed teams with financial power vs old teams with limited budget.

4) transfer of riders between teams.

5) the lack of money in the sport.

I might have missed any other issues. So if any other issues come up, just discuss it as we go along.

p/s: if this issue has already been discussed extendedly and exclusively, I'm terribly sorry.

 

[sublimit]

They need to sort out individual rankings of all pro riders for a start, riders like Russell Downing doesnt feature with any ranking points yet he won 3 races, Adam Blyth figures very low but that was down to coming in the top 5 of a Giro stage yet his other wins count for nothing. so its an insane system as it stands.

It should be based on the system used in tennis where every player will gather points whether you are Federer or some useless club player playing a low ranking event.

Once you've sorted the individual rankings then you have a base to start sorting the team rankings.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I'd like to see the 'top tier' be reduced in numbers.

12 teams would be better imo. Allow more wildcards for races, allowing organizers to have various preferences (plus im sure all PT race organizers would be less reluctant to agree guarantee for 12 teams). As it is, not enough teams get a fair go. This would probably raise the quality of the top tier teams tho... that being a good thing or bad thing might come down to opinion i guess... But I really feel less teams would be good for the sport.

A more solid ranking system, in which teams know what criteria is required prior to the season (Their own method of handling things makes the UCI rankings almost irrelevant to the sport) - not at end end - as a motive even? Maybe even a relegation/promotion type system implemented again.
-- points could be rewarded in terms of racing results / ethics-doping (positive = reduction in point etc).... etc. I disagree that new riders should bring points to a team tho. This hardly advocates a team sport.

This would give teams structure and goals to aim for, in terms of PT. Not to mention teams' feeling security, and having fate in their own hands, not to some rubbish system the UCI implement at the end of a season, leaving teams in the unknown. This was unprofessional and very unfair imo.

 

[Sophistic]

There is no need for any qualification system as there is no need for the Pro Tour or the UCI itself. The Organisers should invite whoever they want.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

There is no need for any qualification system as there is no need for the Pro Tour or the UCI itself. The Organisers should invite whoever they want.

well this is the dream, I agree

 

[sublimit]

There is no need for any qualification system as there is no need for the Pro Tour or the UCI itself. The Organisers should invite whoever they want.

I advocate the disbanding of the UCI because they dont serve any purpose.

Inviting the teams with the best riders tothe biggest races has to be the ultimate goal.. a dream, maybe one day.

 

[Matthijs]

I'd like to see the 'top tier' be reduced in numbers.

12 teams would be better imo. Allow more wildcards for races, allowing organizers to have various preferences (plus im sure all PT race organizers would be less reluctant to agree guarantee for 12 teams). As it is, not enough teams get a fair go. This would probably raise the quality of the top tier teams tho... that being a good thing or bad thing might come down to opinion i guess... But I really feel less teams would be good for the sport.

A more solid ranking system, in which teams know what criteria is required prior to the season (Their own method of handling things makes the UCI rankings almost irrelevant to the sport) - not at end end - as a motive even? Maybe even a relegation/promotion type system implemented again.
-- points could be rewarded in terms of racing results / ethics-doping (positive = reduction in point etc).... etc. I disagree that new riders should bring points to a team tho. This hardly advocates a team sport.

This would give teams structure and goals to aim for, in terms of PT. Not to mention teams' feeling security, and having fate in their own hands, not to some rubbish system the UCI implement at the end of a season, leaving teams in the unknown. This was unprofessional and very unfair imo.

very good idea!! that, with the above mentioned tennis-like points system and the whole fuss is over...

 

[Mellow Velo]

A very good piece, totally relevant to this thread:
http://www.irishpeloton.com/?p=417

 

[Anonymous]

There is no need for any qualification system as there is no need for the Pro Tour or the UCI itself. The Organisers should invite whoever they want.

Agreed. Scrap the whole lot of it.

But if they are going to have a system.

1) Review the points system for teams, more akin to the CQ rank
2) Top twelve teams at the end of each year get top level status assuming:
a. they fullfil the relevant financial criteria
b. they fullfil the relevant ethical criteria
c. they have no positives on the team for the previous season
3) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points of any departing riders
4) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points for any new signings
(in other words, a moving riders pts are split between his old team and new team)
5) Top level licences are issued for one year only
6) Top level teams get invites to all three grand tours, and all monuments, the rest is down to the race organisers
7) any team having a positive during the year automatically loses the right to be guaranteed an invite to the races in option 6. They can still be invited, but race organisers are under no obligation to invite them.
8) No restrictions to the amount of pro-continental teams allowed, but an additional class created for teams largely made up of U23 riders. These teams are allowed 20% of over 23 riders up to a maximum of 5 of whom no more than 2 are allowed in any one race.
9) Organisers of all UCI one day races and short tours are obliged to invite one of the teams from cat 8.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The whole idea of riders carrying forward their acquired points, (i.e.their points determine their value) is a recipe for increased doping infractions.
It amplifies the pressure that already exists to achieve results.
How do domestiques to major team leaders increase their value to potential buyers, when they have little or no opportunity to score salary inflating points?

Totally nuts, IMO.

The UCI should have handed out PT invites based upon team results for 2010 and then come up with something for 2011 half as sensible as the ideas posted above.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1) all races provide points.
2) all points scored at all races count towards overall rankings, to end the farce of ProTour racers points not counting in .HC or .1 races and ProConti racers not counting in GTs.
3) Reduce the top tier to 15 in number.
4) This 15 will be selected by their position in the rankings the previous year. Current roster is not taken into account; nobody promotes a soccer team based on them signing players from the top tier, so nobody should promote a cycling team. You should know what you're getting into when you sign for a smaller team.
5) No new team can enter the top tier. They must spend at least one year in the second tier to prove themselves before they arrive at the top tier. This prevents new teams being set up by people with a sense of entitlement and instantly bogarting slots at the top, or teams simply buying success. Buying a whole bunch of players and being rich didn't put Manchester City in the Champions' League - you still have to climb up to the top.
6) The top tier teams can attend any race they choose to attend - but they can choose which ones. No race is compulsory to attend, so we don't end up with Euskaltel wasting an invite at Roubaix for example. However, the points available for the top tier races will mean that they will have to attend at least some of these to prevent losing their top tier status.
7) The second tier teams (consisting of the next group of teams in the ranking plus any new teams that fulfil a set of sporting criteria based upon their roster for the upcoming year) can be invited to any race - but their attendance hinges on invitation.
8) The third tier teams, much like present Continental teams, can attend .HC races in their homeland and .1 and .2 races everywhere else.

 

[aahmadhu]

I agree to most of the points. Particularly on the number of teams in the top tier should be reduced to give maneuverability to race organisers and the teams themselves.

I am actually attracted to an idea mentioned a while back in a different thread. The idea is about reducing the ProTour licenses to 12. The license is categorized into 3 levels, let's just name them License A, B and C.

A License: The top 12 teams; which are required to complete all Pro Tour calendar which should include all 3 GTs, all 5 Monuments, a good selection of 1-week races and also a selection of 1-day races. All the races that these teams are obligated to participate make up the Pro Tour calendar.

B License: 6 to 8 teams; these teams have to compete in only 2 GTs, only 3 or 4 out of 5 Monuments, and not all of the 1-week and 1-day races of the calendar. So these teams have to choose.

C License: 6 to 8 teams; these teams can only compete in one GT only, maybe 2 or 3 of the Monuments, and a handful of 1-week and 1-day races of the calendar. These are the teams which have to select the races where they have higher chances of winning or at least collect massive ranking points.

The rest of the teams, we could say, make up the Pro Continental outfits. Or maybe we could say the C License teams are already a Pro Conti teams, only that they have the luxury of a C License.

Points are collected at each race, which determine the ranking (I haven't given the point system further thought yet), where at the end of the year, we could use the promotion-relegation system between the Licenses.

Newly formed team should start as a C License team or maybe a B License and work their way up the ranking, and newly purchased rider's points of the previous season does not carry forward into the new team. Like Liberty Seguros said above, a rider should know what he's getting into when signing for a smaller or newly formed team.

With the number of top tier's teams reduced, then race organisers do have 2 or 3 slots for wildcards.

If it comes to an issue where an A License team doesn't want to compete in one of the 1-week or 1-day races of the calendar, then there has to be some points deducted for that particular team, and race organisers can invite any team to make up the number, regardless of the license type.

I haven't given this a deep thought yet, but that's the gist of it.

 

[IlCobraFan]

Anything else than the current system would be an improvement

Why should 16th to 20th (sporting hierarchy) be evaluated by the UCI Personal Opinion Commision? Politics should not decide the ProTeams.

 

[Matthijs]

do not forget to install back again: the worldcup (and its jersey), or maybe the Classic-Cup if it has to be some other name...

 

[Mambo95]

Here's my thoughts.

1. Keep the ProTour calender as it is - but no brand new events. Give them a couple of years to show they can get sponsorship and a crowd (if not the riders). The Tour of California, Strade Bianche and Paris-Tours are first in line for promotion.

2. The ranking points remain the same, but the team rankings include all riders points, not just the top 5.

2a. Small points are also on offer for .HC races. (But no compulsory entry). ProTour teams can enter no more than 2/3 of these.

2b. Points for Points/KOM* wins in Protour races and top three in GCs. *Not KOM in TdU and Eneco.

3. The top 15 teams at the end of the year are designated 'ProTour' for the following season.

4. Any new team will be designated 'ProTour' if their roster has enough points that it would have made the top ten in the previous year. Maximum of three new teams (unlikely to be more than one or two). You can say teams should work their way up, but we don't want to be deterring new sponsors either.

5. All 'ProTour' teams have the option to opt out of one GT, one one week stage race, and one one-day race. However, a team can only miss one of the races outside Europe.

6. Any ProConti team can be given a wildcard, but no more than 2/3 can be from the host nation.

7. Any points scored by a rider that is sanctioned for doping are not counted (obviously). The team also loses 50% of all points won in the races that rider competed in. (The rider who won them keeps them though).

8. For every race that a team enters, it pays a small levy of points. So if they do absolutely nothing, then they lose points.

9. Make a big deal of the individual ProTour standings. Get a sponsor, some prize money, and a leaders jersey.

10. Outsource all dope testing to WADA or some other independent agency.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

8) No restrictions to the amount of pro-continental teams allowed, but an additional class created for teams largely made up of U23 riders. These teams are allowed 20&#37]

I disagree with this, primarily with (9.
These races aren't essential for youth development, in fact a race like P-R is a lot to handle for an esp. Many shorter races (including u23 level) exist, which youth use as a stepping stone. Why push the youngsters into racing these races. Mean while a team with a genuine leader could miss out (i.e vasc. missing out on ardennes this year, I felt they would have spiced things up a bit). These youngsters will get their go, no need to force it.

The whole idea of riders carrying forward their acquired points, (i.e.their points determine their value) is a recipe for increased doping infractions.
It amplifies the pressure that already exists to achieve results.
How do domestiques to major team leaders increase their value to potential buyers, when they have little or no opportunity to score salary inflating points?

Totally nuts, IMO.

The UCI should have handed out PT invites based upon team results for 2010 and then come up with something for 2011 half as sensible as the ideas posted above.

this.

A rider leaves a team, not a single point should follow.
It promotes the wrong reason to sign riders, leads to unnecessary actions (by riders) and disregards team work. Very poor.

4) This 15 will be selected by their position in the rankings the previous year. Current roster is not taken into account; nobody promotes a soccer team based on them signing players from the top tier, so nobody should promote a cycling team. You should know what you're getting into when you sign for a smaller team.
5) No new team can enter the top tier. They must spend at least one year in the second tier to prove themselves before they arrive at the top tier. This prevents new teams being set up by people with a sense of entitlement and instantly bogarting slots at the top, or teams simply buying success. Buying a whole bunch of players and being rich didn't put Manchester City in the Champions' League - you still have to climb up to the top.

I agree with this.
A promotion/relegation system would be far more effective (and really interesting imo).

 

[auscyclefan94]

Agreed. Scrap the whole lot of it.

But if they are going to have a system.

1) Review the points system for teams, more akin to the CQ rank
2) Top twelve teams at the end of each year get top level status assuming:
a. they fullfil the relevant financial criteria
b. they fullfil the relevant ethical criteria
c. they have no positives on the team for the previous season
3) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points of any departing riders
4) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points for any new signings
(in other words, a moving riders pts are split between his old team and new team)
5) Top level licences are issued for one year only
6) Top level teams get invites to all three grand tours, and all monuments, the rest is down to the race organisers
7) any team having a positive during the year automatically loses the right to be guaranteed an invite to the races in option 6. They can still be invited, but race organisers are under no obligation to invite them.
8) No restrictions to the amount of pro-continental teams allowed, but an additional class created for teams largely made up of U23 riders. These teams are allowed 20% of over 23 riders up to a maximum of 5 of whom no more than 2 are allowed in any one race.
9) Organisers of all UCI one day races and short tours are obliged to invite one of the teams from cat 8.

1)I think the whole points system needs to be reviewed. Maybe we should try on the forum to make our own.
2)I would abolish a pro tour/world tour team system. Teams apply for what events they want to race at and organisers decide who to invite. Still have a points sytem but make a more in depth points system.
3)4) Like the idea as there always will be some sort of points system.
5)As I said above, I would abolish a license system. race organisers should not be restricted so much on who they want to invite.
6) Top teams of that year will get invited to all monuements and GT's anyway.
7) Totally disagree. You can't black ban a whole team from races which most riders or possibly 99% of riders had nothing to do with that positive. Would have to be 4 positives or something like that...
8) Don't like it. Just seems stupid to me. The riders who are over 23 on the predominantly u23 team might as well be called a pro team.
9) Seems silly, as i said above organisers can invite whoever they like...

 

[Benotti69]

I advocate the disbanding of the UCI because they dont serve any purpose.

Inviting the teams with the best riders tothe biggest races has to be the ultimate goal.. a dream, maybe one day.

the purpose of the UCI is to enrich Verbruggen and his lackey McQuaid, but bet McQuaid only gets scraps from Verbruggens table if he behaves.....

 

[Anonymous]

1)I think the whole points system needs to be reviewed. Maybe we should try on the forum to make our own.
2)I would abolish a pro tour/world tour team system. Teams apply for what events they want to race at and organisers decide who to invite. Still have a points sytem but make a more in depth points system.
3)4) Like the idea as there always will be some sort of points system.
5)As I said above, I would abolish a license system. race organisers should not be restricted so much on who they want to invite.
6) Top teams of that year will get invited to all monuements and GT's anyway.
7) Totally disagree. You can't black ban a whole team from races which most riders or possibly 99% of riders had nothing to do with that positive. Would have to be 4 positives or something like that...
8) Don't like it. Just seems stupid to me. The riders who are over 23 on the predominantly u23 team might as well be called a pro team.
9) Seems silly, as i said above organisers can invite whoever they like...

8) not suggesting a blanket ban, but rather if they have a positive they lose their automatic right to be invited. It is then down to the race organiser if they wish to invite them. It means race organisers arent forced to accept teams that have current bad press
9) the idea was a rough one to encourage development of young riders, whilst allowing a certain amount of experience on the team to advise them, help them develop etc. somewhere for the likes of hincapie, mcewan etc to go when there careers are nearing the end, where they can help develop young talent but still have a chance of top level racing.

 

[Francois the Postman]

3) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points of any departing riders
4) Teams get 50% of the previous seasons points for any new signings
(in other words, a moving riders pts are split between his old team and new team)

I am flabbergasted that this, or something similar, isn't already in place.

Most riders only earn the position they end up in because of the efforts of the team around them (those who rely on riders still stuck in the Netherlands part of the Giro excluded). Yet they can walk away with all the amassed points.

You get to the rather stupid position that it is starting to make sense to stop certain riders, or upcoming riders, in your team from getting the best results possible throughout the year. Especially if they are not going to win or get a podium, as all you do is making them a more attractive prey for the big wallet cradle snatchers. And worse, you actually inject discouragement to team-members from sacrificing themselves to help riders on the same team to points, the moment it would come at the real-world cost to their own end of season value. It's bonkers.

In a way the current system is set up to accelerate the new trend of money-rich wannabes, with next to no track record in the sport, poaching riders from long established and committed teams.

There is something in publishing called "vanity-publishing". Self-publishers who are in it for their own aggrandising delusions or agendas. Some of the new ventures are starting to smell suspiciously like this. "Projects" that stand or fall with the inclusion of one single rider. Armstrong, Schleck.

We had sponsors who made a strong commitment to local/national teams, almost regardless of who was in it. The direction that the UCI has picked for the cycling ship is turfing these type of sponsors rapidly out of the potential-sponsor pool.

We still have sponsors who have made a strong and lasting commitment to the sport in general, often putting a flagship team at the helm of a more general message. A few are probably just big enough, with interests in enough markets globally, to keep them involved, but many will struggle to find value-for-money if the UCI keeps ploughing ahead with their global "vision".

So we will increasingly be at the mercy of the vanity investors with deep pockets, who want to identify with a successful rider, and throw enough money at it to see their pet-project materialize.

The problem is, once the attraction has died, so will the commitment to these "teams". And the attraction inevitably starts only after a rider has matured enough to be noticed at the sharp end.

To keep getting these sort of riders, and a healthy sport, we need the type of sponsors that are willing to commit to the sport, to teams, not specific riders.

The UCI is increasingly creating a system that breeds rewards for those with money and only skin-deep and short-term interests. It is starting to make life harder and harder for the teams that are the true lifelines of our sport.

The more the PT system dictates to organisers globally who rides and who doesn't, and the more it dictates to teams where to ride too, the more I have become convinced that it will prove to be the biggest failure and the biggest flawed vision we let creep into "our" sport.

That riders take all the points just now, and that teams are not being given any reward for helping a rider acquire those, is prove to me that the UCI really lacks the sort of people who have the health of our sport at heart, although I guess they genuinely see it otherwise. Smitten by the noble aim of seeing cycling going global, but incapable to see that the route taken is killing the oxygen supply slowly.

Say Schleck the Younger & Thirstier has an accident next year and has to stop racing. Despite the stellar line-up, as a concept, you might as well disband Team Luxembourg there and then, as it has lost it's raison d'être. And it might as well have killed off Saxobank in the process.

Maybe they will try to keep a form of US-audience-focussed Radio Shack going beyond Lance, but it was a wafer-thin project the day it started, with, realistically, wafer-thin cycling calendar ambitions to match (sorry, my opinion), and it hasn't got much better since. I rate BMC well above those, to be frank, as I think the team will show longevity beyond Cadel.

But we encourage an annual team shake-up in which smaller pockets will increasingly struggle to keep going, with the survival/progress/reward system stacked against it. I have seen what it has done to football (soccer to the infidels) across the globe. I fail to see how it will come good for our sport in the long run, when this vision and attitude has failed time and time again for sports that had far more attraction and resources to play with for starters.

 

[Francois the Postman]

1)I think the whole points system needs to be reviewed. Maybe we should try on the forum to make our own.
2)I would abolish a pro tour/world tour team system. Teams apply for what events they want to race at and organisers decide who to invite. Still have a points sytem but make a more in depth points system.
3)4) Like the idea as there always will be some sort of points system.
5)As I said above, I would abolish a license system. race organisers should not be restricted so much on who they want to invite.

If you do away with the licences and give organisers a carte blanche to invite who they want, what "racing" function does a points system have, besides being a flawed foundation to prove which rider or team is better or worse on forums like these?

 

[aahmadhu]

I am flabbergasted that this, or something similar, isn't already in place.

Most riders only earn the position they end up in because of the efforts of the team around them (those who rely on riders still stuck in the Netherlands part of the Giro excluded). Yet they can walk away with all the amassed points.

You get to the rather stupid position that it is starting to make sense to stop certain riders, or upcoming riders, in your team from getting the best results possible throughout the year. Especially if they are not going to win or get a podium, as all you do is making them a more attractive prey for the big wallet cradle snatchers.

In a way the current system is set up to accelerate the new trend of money-rich wannabes, with next to no track record in the sport, poaching riders from long established and committed teams.

There is something in publishing called "vanity-publishing". Self-publishers who are in it for their own aggrandising delusions or agendas. Some of the new ventures are starting to smell suspiciously like this. "Projects" that stand or fall with the inclusion of one single rider. Armstrong, Schleck.

We had sponsors who made a strong commitment to local/national teams, almost regardless of who was in it. The direction that the UCI has picked for the cycling ship is turfing these type of sponsors rapidly out of the potential-sponsor pool.

We still have sponsors who have made a strong and lasting commitment to the sport in general, often putting a flagship team at the helm of a more general message. A few are probably just big enough, with interests in enough markets globally, to keep them involved, but many will struggle to find value-for-money if the UCI keeps ploughing ahead with their global "vision".

So we will increasingly be at the mercy of the vanity investors with deep pockets, who want to identify with a successful rider, and throw enough money at it to see their pet-project materialize.

The problem is, once the attraction has died, so will the commitment to these "teams". And the attraction inevitably starts only after a rider has matured enough to be noticed at the sharp end.

To keep getting these sort of riders, and a healthy sport, we need the type of sponsors that are willing to commit to the sport, to teams, not specific riders.

The UCI is increasingly creating a system that breeds rewards for those with money and only skin-deep and short-term interests. It is starting to make life harder and harder for the teams that are the true lifelines of our sport.

The more the PT system dictates to organisers globally who rides and who doesn't, and the more it dictates to teams where to ride too, the more I have become convinced that it will prove to be the biggest failure and the biggest flawed vision we let creep into "our" sport.

That riders take all the points just now, and that teams are not being given any reward for helping a rider acquire those, is prove to me that the UCI really lacks the sort of people who have the health of our sport at heart, although I guess they genuinely see it otherwise. Smitten by the noble aim of seeing cycling going global, but incapable to see that the route taken is killing the oxygen supply slowly.

Say Schleck the Younger & Thirstier has an accident next year and has to stop racing. Despite the stellar line-up, as a concept, you might as well disband Team Luxembourg there and then, as it has lost it's raison d'être. And it might as well have killed off Saxobank in the process.

Maybe they will try to keep a form of US-audience-focussed Radio Shack going beyond Lance, but it was a wafer-thin project the day it started, with, realistically, wafer-thin cycling calendar ambitions to match (sorry, my opinion), and it hasn't got much better since. I rate BMC well above those, to be frank, as I think the team will show longevity beyond Cadel.

But we encourage an annual team shake-up in which smaller pockets will increasingly struggle to keep going, with the survival/progress/reward system stacked against it. I have seen what it has done to football (soccer to the infidels) across the globe. I fail to see how it will come good for our sport in the long run, when this vision and attitude has failed time and time again for sports that had far more attraction and resources to play with for starters.

I kinda expected the pattern, but when you put it that way, I just realized how serious the situation is. Couldn't agree more.

 

[auscyclefan94]

If you do away with the licences and give organisers a carte blanche to invite who they want, what "racing" function does a points system have, besides being a flawed foundation to prove which rider or team is better or worse on forums like these?

A points system would be put in place for all races at the top level. A big prize pool (and I mean big) would be put in place for the winner and the team winner and the winning cycling nation's federation should also get some money.

 

[Francois the Postman]

A points system would be put in place for all races at the top level. A big prize pool (and I mean big) would be put in place for the winner and the team winner and the winning cycling nation's federation should also get some money.

But no-one would know who could actually chase these points, and how often? As you argue at the same time that it's up to each organising committee to hand out invites.

You are proposing a sort of championship league, right? Except not only do the best teams get the best players, they are likely to play more games too? Or the last organiser in Spain could keep Chelsea from competing in the deciding final?

Part of me would love to see that. Purely for the fall-out.

 

[auscyclefan94]

But no-one would know who could actually chase these points, and how often?

You are proposing a sort of championship league, right? Except not only do the best teams get the best players, they also get to play more games too? Or the last organiser in Spain could keep Chelsea from competing in the deciding final?

Here's what i would do theoretically.

GT: 100, 90, 80... Stage wins: 20, 15, 10 Classification win: 40, 30, 20
Monuements: 80, 70, 60...
Stage races (PN, TA, Basque country, etc.): 65, 60, 55... Stage wins: 10,8,6
One day races (Fleche, Amstel, GW, etc.) 60, 50, 45...

Any stage race (lower than level of above): 40, 30, 20 Stage wins: 5,4,3

Any other one day race (lower than level of above): 30, 25, 20...

- GT overally points would only go to top 20
- Stage races & all one day races including monuments would only give out points to top 10
- Points for Stages in grand tours would only go to top 5 and top 3 in other stage races
- GT's are all on the same level.


it is a rough plan.