UCI deadline(s), due October 1, What to expect ?

[auscyclefan94]

Im lost.. no idea what teams are getting PT licences, no idea what teams get tour invites.. Completely and utterly stumped

PT licenses gurantee that you get to race at protour events but that is nothing to do with a teams entry into a GT.

 

[ingsve]

Which makes BMC's automatic, 15th spot even more surprising.

Well, just think of all the Cadel results from the last two years and they still only got 15th.

1st FW
1st Worlds
2nd Dauphine
3rd Vuelta
3rd T-A
3rd Vasco
4th LBL
5th Giro
5th FW

That alone probably tops the best results of entire teams below them so I think Evans is very much responsible for their position.

 

[Mambo95]

PT licenses gurantee that you get to race at protour events but that is nothing to do with a teams entry into a GT.

No, it's all change next year. The 18 teams get guaranteed entry to all races that matter, including GTs.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-publishes-20-teams-seeking-proteam-licences-in-2011

Although they seem to have changed who gets the licences since then, so who knows really.

 

[ingsve]

No, it's all change next year. The 18 teams get guaranteed entry to all races that matter, including GTs.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-publishes-20-teams-seeking-proteam-licences-in-2011

Although they seem to have changed who gets the licences since then, so who knows really.

That's still to be decided. There was an agreement that the UCI published that said all PT teams rides all races including GTs but apparently Zomegnan or whoever it was had not agreed to this while ASO had so things were still uncertain even after UCIs announcement.

 

[ingsve]

So, the top 15 on that ranking will get PT licenses provided that they meet financial, ethical and administrative criteria. This is why only four teams have been given the OK as of yet. The other 11 in the top 15 still have to be evaluated for financial, ethical and administrative criteria. So all is not certain for Vacansoleil, BMC and Schlux yet. There might still be something they'll fail at whereas the other teams have already passed those criteria in previous years so things might be more a formality for them unless they have screwed up their things since previous years.

 

[ingsve]

How are Sky ahead of Liquigas?

I think Boasson Hagens 2009 would bring in a lot of points for them in this ranking. Rogers also brings with him two relatively successful seasons. Remember also that Bennatis, Chicchis, Kreuzigers and maybe even Pellizottis points don't count.

 

[ingsve]

I like this change a lot. It seems that this removes the whole multi year license thing since it seems you are only safe if you finish in the top 15 each year. This means that teams are required to perform at a high level and to not lose all their top riders so we won't have the situation of Footon-Servetto again.

It's sort of like a return to the old TT1 and TT2 rankings where the top 2 TT2 teams were guaranteed to more up to TT1 and the botton 2 TT1s went dpwn to TT2. Now it's almost like that. A Pro Conti team can move up to the PT level by gaining enough points as long as their finances etc are in order when they do.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I like this change a lot. It seems that this removes the whole multi year license thing since it seems you are only safe if you finish in the top 15 each year. This means that teams are required to perform at a high level and to not lose all their top riders so we won't have the situation of Footon-Servetto again.

No, it really doesn't mean that. It means that you have to have riders signed for the next year that performed in the last 2 years. Doesn't matter in what team. Your team doesn't need to peform in the previous year. Yes, a footon case won't be repeated, but other not much better scenarios are there too.

Team A doesn't deliver in 11. 22 or so. But buys 3 riders with good seasons in 10/11. Bakc in top 15.
12: Again, doesn't convince, the three new guys have bad years, the rest of the team too. again 22. Ah well, 3 new guys, top 15 reached, still safe.

First, the points for individual riders have to count for the team they got them with as well. And only partly for the new team. 66-33 old new.
Or make 2 rankings, one with the riders in the old team, one in the new team. And then only teams that are in the top 15 are automatically in. The others, more complicated calculations or case by case decision. But well, why trust people who come up with this weird system to make sensible case by case decisions?

Then they shouldn't look at 2 years at once, but at 2 years individually.

Not a good system.

The whole point of the PT was to give the sport long term sponsors? Why not, did ok before, but if that's the goal this system sucks. Then just go back to a top 10 that is guaranteed and have the rest fight it out on the road and let ASO/RCS/Unipublic and the other organizers decide.

Or make a sensible system, give out multiyear licences, but make it possible to revoke them if a team fails 2 years in a row. Every team can have a bad year, no need to take away the licence after one. But 2? Out. Team A from above goes, with this new system it might stay. Then you have the sporting criteria,

 

[ingsve]

No, it really doesn't mean that. It means that you have to have riders signed for the next year that performed in the last 2 years. Doesn't matter in what team. Your team doesn't need to peform in the previous year. Yes, a footon case won't be repeated, but other not much better scenarios are there too.

Team A doesn't deliver in 11. 22 or so. But buys 3 riders with good seasons in 10/11. Bakc in top 15.
12: Again, doesn't convince, the three new guys have bad years, the rest of the team too. again 22. Ah well, 3 new guys, top 15 reached, still safe.

That's a really far-fetched scenario. It would require that a team recruits good riders and that those riders all of a sudden have crap years. That's very unlikely. Also since points are counted for two years it's unlikely that there will be huge swings in team position from one year to the next. It also requires that there are riders with good points available that are winning to go to this constantly failing team.

The only negative I see is that yes, it does make it harder to get long sponsor contract if they sponsors demand that the team is PT.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

A team going from ok, to complete crap like Footon did was fairly far fetched as well IMO.

But next year in August, team not performing too well, you're around nr 20... sign an old rider still ok this year, 2010, much less 2011, he'll give you some points. Then buy a real star too, rider x. top 15, saved.
2012 x is positive, or he crashes and misses long stretches of the year, no points or few points old guy useless, rest of the team not performing again, same position as the year before

Can happen. maybe from 22 to 15 won't happen, but 18 to 15 is more likely Which still makes a difference, 15 is automatic if the rest is in order. 18 will be discussed. A team that regularly is outside the top 15, always 16-20, so not really part of the elite, might manage to keep it's licence for years. Just by signing the right riders. While a team that perform better might have to be "reviewed" every year. Or with some bad luck, end up at 21 one year, which means out. If the teams are close together around 15-21 it doesn't take much.

Signings become too important with this system.

 

[Arnout]

Signings become too important with this system.

That's the holy UCI message of globalization. Because this means its easier for new sponsors to enter. What they forget is that new sponsors will also exit again.

Its also funny that sporting criteria are only based on as far as I can work out ProTour events and HC events. This means sporting criteria is biased towards older riders as they scored more points in the past, whereas new talents may have been brilliant in youth circuit but teams giving them a chance will be punished. So long for the future of the sport. Consider for example Euskaltel (I like to take this example), they have some bright talents on board but are low on the rankings where other teams are much higher up, but without a chance to perform better in future.

I don't like the quest for money and globalization.

 

[Boeing]

Sky must be well greased on the political scale

 

[theyoungest]

That's the holy UCI message of globalization. Because this means its easier for new sponsors to enter. What they forget is that new sponsors will also exit again.

Its also funny that sporting criteria are only based on as far as I can work out ProTour events and HC events. This means sporting criteria is biased towards older riders as they scored more points in the past, whereas new talents may have been brilliant in youth circuit but teams giving them a chance will be punished. So long for the future of the sport. Consider for example Euskaltel (I like to take this example), they have some bright talents on board but are low on the rankings where other teams are much higher up, but without a chance to perform better in future.

I don't like the quest for money and globalization.

I understand you're disappointed about Euskaltel's precarious situation, but this is just bullcrap. Most of the other teams have a few talents and have plenty of room to grow.

 

[royalpig180]

That's the holy UCI message of globalization. Because this means its easier for new sponsors to enter. What they forget is that new sponsors will also exit again.

Its also funny that sporting criteria are only based on as far as I can work out ProTour events and HC events. This means sporting criteria is biased towards older riders as they scored more points in the past, whereas new talents may have been brilliant in youth circuit but teams giving them a chance will be punished. So long for the future of the sport. Consider for example Euskaltel (I like to take this example), they have some bright talents on board but are low on the rankings where other teams are much higher up, but without a chance to perform better in future.

I don't like the quest for money and globalization.

Nope, wrong. The system counts all UCI sanctioned events (.HIS, .PT, .HC, .1, .2) on a decreasing points scale. That's how US teams that didn't even race an HC race (I think ToC and Philadelphia are only US .HC races) are ranked on the list at all.

 

[Arnout]

I understand you're disappointed about Euskaltel's precarious situation, but this is just bullcrap. Most of the other teams have a few talents and have plenty of room to grow.

Still, they should include that into the analysis by also awarding points to U23 races, because again, I think they don't do that.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Still, they should include that into the analysis by also awarding points to U23 races, because again, I think they don't do that.

Can't find the article with a breakdown of points, but at least according to this one, U23 results were included.

The same article includes the idea that long term licences won't survive a drop outside the top 20, but makes no suggestion that falling to 16th (or 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th) will cause their cancelation. Which seems good for QST and AG2R for next year.

 

[Arnout]

They announced it, but in the statement released yesterday I cannot find it anywhere. And UCI of course changes every idea 5 times between publications.

 

[Tuarts]

As I understand it, ten teams already have a licence that lasts for at least one more season:
* AG2R – LA MONDIALE
* KATUSHA
* LAMPRE – ISD
* OMEGA PHARMA – LOTTO
* QUICKSTEP CYCLING TEAM
* RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM
* SAXO BANK SUNGARD
* SKY PROCYCLING
* TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO
* TEAM RADIOSHACK

All of those are in the top 20, so unless financial/ethical issues are stumbling boxes, these ten are in.

There were 10 other applicants reported by the UCI on 5th October:
* BMC RACING TEAM
* COFIDIS
* EUSKALTEL – EUSKADI
* FDJ
* GEOX – TMC
* HTC – HIGHROAD
* LIQUIGAS – CANNONDALE
* LUXEMBOURG PRO CYCLING PROJECT
* TELEFONICA MOVISTAR
* VACANSOLEIL – DCM PROCYCLING TEAM
and it is generally accepted that 2 additional applications were only missing for administrative reasons, and could be considered:
* ASTANA
* FLY-V PEGASUS

So of the 12 applicants for 8 places, 2 are essentially disqualified on sporting grounds (Pegasus and FDJ being out of the top 20), and 7 are in the top 15 (ASTANA, BMC, HTC, LIQUIGAS, LUXEMBOURG, TELEFONICA, VACANSOLEIL).

So that leaves 1 out of three:
* COFIDIS
* EUSKALTEL – EUSKADI
* GEOX – TMC
to get a PT licence. My money would be on Geox.

But Astana might be called into question ethically, or administratively, and so Euskaltel would be my bet to take their place if they dont make it.

If Saxo drop out of the top 15 because of losing AC's points, I would consider them to be still well placed in what would then be a case of 2 out of 4 (Saxo, Geox, Euskaltel, Cofidis), but if they were to lose so many points that they went out of the top 20, then there might be hope yet for Cofidis.

But the implication here that many of you will have been hoping for: Vacansoleil look likely to be in!

Thanks for the informative post, this looks like the most likely scenario happening from what I've read.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

They announced it, but in the statement released yesterday I cannot find it anywhere. And UCI of course changes every idea 5 times between publications.

But yesterday's statement gives no detail of the races included except "all the events on all the circuits of the UCI International Calendar": "all" presumably includes U23, as previously announced.

 

[DAOTEC]

What about this !

UCI: The sporting value of a team ranked between 16th and 20th places inclusive will be verified by the licence commission via a more detailed assessment. In order to determine whether a team ranked between 16th and 20th satisfies the sporting criterion, the licence commission will inter alia ascertain whether there is a clear gap in the classification or whether particular circumstances have had an effect on the team’s results. Such particular circumstances shall include any injuries to riders, the types of event which the team has ridden and the homogeneity of the team.

 

[nobilis]

What about this !

I think it's good to include some subjectivity in their assessment of the teams' performance. That makes more sense IMO. That will account for factors such as riders' injuries...

 

[ingsve]

As I understand it, ten teams already have a licence that lasts for at least one more season:
* AG2R – LA MONDIALE
* KATUSHA
* LAMPRE – ISD
* OMEGA PHARMA – LOTTO
* QUICKSTEP CYCLING TEAM
* RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM
* SAXO BANK SUNGARD
* SKY PROCYCLING
* TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO
* TEAM RADIOSHACK

All of those are in the top 20, so unless financial/ethical issues are stumbling boxes, these ten are in.

Snip

So that leaves 1 out of three:
* COFIDIS
* EUSKALTEL – EUSKADI
* GEOX – TMC
to get a PT licence. My money would be on Geox.

I'm not sure that already having a license for next year matters at this point so I think AG2r are also in danger. From the article:

It was decided that only the top 15 teams in this ranking would receive or keep their existing first tier status as long as they also meet the financial, ethical and administrative criteria.

I interpret this as saying that if you are not in the top 15 you risk losing your existing first tier status.

 

[janraaskalt]

I'm not sure that already having a license for next year matters at this point so I think AG2r are also in danger.

That would mean that there is no point in having a multi-year license. There would be no difference between teams applying for a license and teams having a license for next year.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I'm not sure that already having a license for next year matters at this point so I think AG2r are also in danger. From the article:

It was decided that only the top 15 teams in this ranking would receive or keep their existing first tier status as long as they also meet the financial, ethical and administrative criteria.

I interpret this as saying that if you are not in the top 15 you risk losing your existing first tier status.

The UCI today (2nd October) confirmed that Pro Tour licences will still be allocated for up to four years to a maximum of 18 teams. However, should some teams fail to make the top 20 of a complicated but fair evaluation system they could be relegated to the Pro Continental ranks. No warning of licence cancelation on sporting grounds for failure to reach top 15. But the UCI are masters of moving the goalposts...

If teams in places 16-20 are treated equally regardless of whether they have an existing licence, then one can only hope that the UCI have the integrity to never again talk of issuing multi-year licences. But with only 12 months security of highest profile publicity, what will happen to sponsor confidence, especially those much sought after sponsors from beyond traditional cycling nations?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Translated: "The French teams will get a UCI shafting".