• 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!

UCI Points system

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jayco has more points now than they had after Paris Nice last season.
Israel has more points now than they had after MSR last season.
EF has more points now than they had after the whole spring classic season last year.

The only WT (or top PCT) teams that don't have more points now than at the same time last season are Arkea (not even half) and Astana (apparently it's possible to do even worse), Alpecin . The rest has more (main reason is obviously the Australian races being back with more points than ever).
 
Last edited:
Euskaltel already have over half the points they got in 2022.

On the women's side, Zaaf's already scored more points than Uno-X and HPH did last season. HPH has had a great start this year, too, and looks to be on their way to secure their WWT spot, while it won't be easy for Uno-X to avoid relegation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lequack
UAE extend the lead again, Jumbo falls below UnoX.

FpBTaFRWcAApHDi
 
Last edited:
Oopso_O
View: https://twitter.com/raulbanqueri/status/1627674604645806080


Mick Rogers replied, thanking him for pointing it out and promising to correct it. No apology or acknowledgement of error though.

An insight into the appalling level of professionalism in the UCI

It is unlikely that a relegation battle comes down to a single point between Ineos and Bahrain, but presumably if it were to do so, it could be argued that the published laws at the time, no matter how illogical, should pertain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BR2
I think a team's lawyers could argue that points for any race can only be distributed according to the published scale of points that was in force at the time of said race. I'd be amazed if they didn't if the scenario were to arise whereby it is relevant, except perhaps if the UCI were to get teams to sign up to a waiver of the right to complain about that error. But that would mean that they have to publicly admit their error.
 
I am proposing a new format: Before the season every team has to rank the races of equal official status and tell us which are their priority. Give points from 1-30 to the 1.1 races they are doing for instance. And then their results in that race are factored accordingly. Would it improve the situation? Likely not. Would it be fun? For me, yes.
 
I am proposing a new format: Before the season every team has to rank the races of equal official status and tell us which are their priority. Give points from 1-30 to the 1.1 races they are doing for instance. And then their results in that race are factored accordingly. Would it improve the situation? Likely not. Would it be fun? For me, yes.

I have given the simplest and fairest system - WT Teams only accrue points for the UCI ranking only in WT races - The men's tour has 167 race days and the women's tour has 87 days - Pro teams can accrue UCI points for the ranking in .pro and 1.1 races.
 
It should be two up and two down - One of the problems with the current system is that the WT and pro teams are in the same pool - For purposes of UCI points they should be in separate pools.

But what if the best ProSeries team is still worse than the worst WorldTour team?

Right now there is good quality in the ProSeries teams but there were years where there weren't two WT worthy teams in the second division, or at least two teams better than the ones who were on the first division. Looking at the 2017 team CQ ranking the 18 WT teams make up the first 18 places and the 1st PRO team has a score which is 90% of the one achieved by the worst WT team. Doesn't make sense to say that this team deserves a guaranteed place in the WT instead of the team ranked above it.

And if we put a system where second division teams are not rewarded for investing in riders who can give them strong results and points in the biggest races, we'll end up with weaker 2nd tier teams resulting in bigger differentials in quality.
 
But what if the best ProSeries team is still worse than the worst WorldTour team?

Right now there is good quality in the ProSeries teams but there were years where there weren't two WT worthy teams in the second division, or at least two teams better than the ones who were on the first division. Looking at the 2017 team CQ ranking the 18 WT teams make up the first 18 places and the 1st PRO team has a score which is 90% of the one achieved by the worst WT team. Doesn't make sense to say that this team deserves a guaranteed place in the WT instead of the team ranked above it.

And if we put a system where second division teams are not rewarded for investing in riders who can give them strong results and points in the biggest races, we'll end up with weaker 2nd tier teams resulting in bigger differentials in quality.

And WT teams wouldn't bother going to the same amount of non-WT races and maybe even hire fewer riders.

That said, we have probably also seen too many WT-teams in some races, where they "stole" points, results and money away from smaller teams, because of the current system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samamba