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

[ladyvader]

Here is what I think. A new team should have to earn the Pro Tour license by their actions on the road instead of the riders they sign. Money alone should not be the only reason to give a team a Pro Tour license.

That seems to be the reason why teams like Katusha, Radio Shack, Lux team, Sky got Pro Tour licenses in the first place.

Just my thought.

 

[Francois the Postman]

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.

I already understood you were going to give points in your point system. You didn't address any obvious flaws in that plan, some of which I flagged up.

My objection was that you at the same time allow organisers to dictate who rides and who doesn't. No regulations or standards to create a level playing field at all.

In the past you have posted about the bias of nations regarding their own riders. You now propose as system that takes all brakes from that sort of patriotic nonsense, and open the doors even wider to blatant rider favouritism by even smaller subgroups, totally unregulated and standardised.

You cannot see how that would play out?

It's like giving the owner of a race ring in Germany the option to bar the Ozzie F1 rider in the 3-way deciding race with its German rider. And promote that as a good idea.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I already understood you were going to give points in your point system. You didn't address any obvious flaws in that plan, some of which I flagged up.

My objection was that you at the same time allow organisers to dictate who rides and who doesn't. No regulations or standards to create a level playing field at all.

In the past you have posted about the bias of nations regarding their own riders. You now propose as system that takes all brakes from that sort of patriotic nonsense, and open the doors even wider to blatant rider favouritism by even smaller subgroups, totally unregulated and standardised.

You cannot see how that would play out?

It's like giving the owner of a race ring in Germany the option to bar the Ozzie F1 rider in the 3-way deciding race with its German rider. And promote that as a good idea.

Not 100% sure on what you are saying but all the top riders will get invites to the races they want to. Also all the top teams will get invites to the races they want to. If a team has some positives then it is the organisers choice to invite them or not. Race organisers will invite some national teams but the organisers will also generally invite all the best teams.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not 100% sure on what you are saying but all the top riders will get invites to the races they want to. Also all the top teams will get invites to the races they want to. If a team has some positives then it is the organisers choice to invite them or not. Race organisers will invite some national teams but the organisers will also generally invite all the best teams.

What he's saying is, though it's generally true that organisers will invite the best teams, when you add vested interests to the mix it could get very political - see how Millar lost the Vuelta, for example. If it came down to, say, Valverde and Evans fighting over the World #1 ranking coming into the last points paying event, and that event was the Vuelta a Murcía (which is in March, I know), and the Spanish organisers had the chance to not invite BMC because they didn't have to, and they wanted their hometown boy to be ranked #1, so they uninvited BMC, barred Evans from entering, and gave Valverde the title on a plate... wouldn't you be pretty damn annoyed?

 

[auscyclefan94]

What he's saying is, though it's generally true that organisers will invite the best teams, when you add vested interests to the mix it could get very political - see how Millar lost the Vuelta, for example. If it came down to, say, Valverde and Evans fighting over the World #1 ranking coming into the last points paying event, and that event was the Vuelta a Murcía (which is in March, I know), and the Spanish organisers had the chance to not invite BMC because they didn't have to, and they wanted their hometown boy to be ranked #1, so they uninvited BMC, barred Evans from entering, and gave Valverde the title on a plate... wouldn't you be pretty damn annoyed?

I doubt an organiser would do that imo. The spanish are not that corrupt.

 

[aahmadhu]

I doubt an organiser would do that imo. The spanish are not that corrupt.

that's why I think giving to much freedom to race organisers is not the way to move forward. there has to be a distinctive method to determine which team can race based on sporting criteria. not solely on invitation or politically influenced decision.

here's what i thought.

use the promotion-relegation league system, with 12 teams in top division, 6 in second tier, another 6 in the third tier.

the races should also be distinctively categorized, where for example, a Pro calendar consisting of all GTs, Monuments, important 1-week races and 1-day races which should be contested by all teams from the top division, 4 from second tier and 2 from third tier. however, the second tier and the third tier teams participation in top division races are limited based on quota enforced on the teams, so these teams have to choose carefully which race they have the highest percentage of winning or bagging points.

similarly, there should also be races where all second tier and third tier teams are required to participate. we could say these races are the lower level of the Pro calendar, and not every team of the top division can participate. and of course, the points offered is not as much as the races of the top division.

at the end of the year, second tier teams who outscore first division teams will be promoted to the top division, and similarly the top teams who has been outscored are demoted to the second tier.

if you look at it mathematically, every race has at least 18 teams qualified to race based sporting criteria. there is still room for organisers to invite 3 to 4 teams as wildcards.