Vaughters' 10-point plan to reinvigorate cycling:

[Skip Madness]

15. In order to make cycling more commercially viable, the UCI should give financial bonuses to teams which hire cute (and therefore marketable) riders, and give those riders financial bonuses for sexy photo shoots.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snipped for brevity>

Really struggle to think of anything that would make cycling more exciting so as to draw new fans in. Maybe if it was advertised better/in the news more, people would watch.

Most people know nothing about cycling, apart from Lance Armstrong or Tour de France. I must seem really cynical, but I really cannot think of something that would bring fans in.

SkipMadness's points about having less riders per team + making routes better would make it more exciting for us fans, but I don't see people tuning in because there are more mountaintop finishes in such-and-such a race this year.

Fair points - but you are only looking at this from a fans point of view (and a TV/internet viewer POV also).

I actually think the sport (Pro cycling) is already pretty good and while I would welcome some of JVs points they in themselves will not grow a new fanbase.

What gets more people accepting, understanding and hopefully involved in racing is having it in their locality - this generates local coverage and an opportunity to see the sport first hand.

A good example of this is the Tour Down Under - it has slowly built itself up and has a quality field and this appears to have a positive effect on the sport there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

JVs plan is all based around what benefits JV under the mistaken belief that what's good for him is good for cycling and all and sundry will agree.

 

[Ferminal]

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe.
2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans.
3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams.
4.** More focus on prevention of doping, in the first place, as opposed to catching cheats.
5. More team-time trials more often.
6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer".
7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest.
8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing.
9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch.
10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points.

1: No - very few races outside of Europe (sorry, I mean "globalisation races" not local ones in Asia or South America) turn out to be exciting, Canada was the exception. Taking people out of proven races in Europe to speculative races in "new markets" I do not agree with.

2: What is so difficult to understand about the first one across the line, or the one with the shortest time? I find track cycling more confusing.

3: Plus guaranteed wildcard spots for race organisers to use at their own discretion. I think Vaughters is looking at this from a sponsors' POV, where they want guaranteed exposure for x number of years. But in this model, the emphasis moves a bit away from sponsors onto TV rights (in terms of funding teams).

4:

5: One per GT, and some of the bigger stage races is not enough? Massive TTT kms ruins the balance of any stage race.

6: What you need if you want (more) people to watch

7: Ok... so you do this, then in 5 years realise it was a bad move, how do you put it back in the box? Am I supposed to be excited that David Millar beat Cancellara in a World Championships because he was wearing a "wing suit" ?

8: Yes

9: Yes for sure, but to make the most of these you need proper online infrastructure, don't just give the tools to Paul Sherwen and ask him to make it sound exciting.

10: Great idea.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe.
This is good in that it'll help bring sponsors from somewhat more exotic places to replace the dearth of money in the traditional cycling countries, but it shouldn't come at the expense of consolidated races in Europe. We all want interesting races like Montreal and Quebec, we don't want races with no character usurping the place of, say, Laigueglia, Volta a Catalunya or Emilia.

3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams.
Disagree. Earn your spot, and let the organizers organize their races. The usual argument that a sponsor won't enter the sport if it's not guaranteed a place at the Tour is countered by itself - once the spots are covered, who's going to start a new team? For the long-term well-being of the sport, start promoting other races aside from the Tour, so that attracting new sponsors doesn't come down to just three weeks in July.

3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams.
hrotha summed up my perspective on this nicely. Potentially harmful to development of the sport.

I disagree with these points and can see why JV thinks this is important.

There should be an elite (ProTour) type teams given long licences of 10 years - this is why Milram lost out as it was only given a 1 year licence and could not guarantee its spot in the Tour.

If you can guarantee a spot then you can get a bigger and better sponsor, which stabilizes the sport for the riders.

This should only be for 15 teams - then let the organizers pick other teams as wildcards.
However - to get this 10 year licence in the first instance the teams should also have a ladies team and/or an U23 team and a proper points system for results where points can be deducted for any violations (PED positives, payment disputes etc)

 

[The Hitch]

-
- A fourth GT in October / November, after the Giro di Lombardia. Possibly the Tour of California (but with more daring course than the last few years).
- Generally more races outside of Europe, as Vaughters said, but not at the expense of European races. There are quite a few European races that are pretty redundant though.
-

Only 1 candidate for this. Vuelta a Colombia, a country with a far more ingrained cycling culture than California (its the 2nd sport there) a race with a lot of history an absolutely amazing parcors and its already hugely important (biggest race for all southamerican teams)

Also they hit their summer in October November.

Edit: and its already a 2 week race.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

2: What is so difficult to understand about the first one across the line, or the one with the shortest time? I find track cycling more confusing.

I think what JV meant when he said "2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans" isn't about the racing but the way certain competitions or prizes are awarded.

As an example the WorldTour (or whatever its called this week) has no leaders jersey and the points and rules are not easy to understand.

The old Super Prestige Pernod of the 80's was a simple and much sought after competition.

 

[Ferminal]

To expand a bit on the TdF (why just one race?) invites.

Just me thinking out loud again.

22 Teams:

Top 5 teams from the race last year (according to a set points system).
Top 10 teams based on last year's world ranking (or the next best team if one has already qualified on the above ruling).
Top 2 teams registered in country of race
3 Wildcards to be determined by race organisers.
2 Wildcards to be determined by the "UCI" (the governing body in this new cycling world where organisers, teams and the "UCI" get along).

The "World Tour" is pathetic how it locked in so many teams for the top races for the entire season. If the World Tour qualification was based entirely on points then it wouldn't be so bad, but there is too much discretion in the decision. Scrap the whole idea of different tiers of teams, all it does is create an exclusive group which makes it harder for teams on the outside. Teams should get paid TV revenues once they qualify for a race, not a full year because they "qualified for the World Tour".

Problem is when you put too great an emphasis on points you end up with Radioshack at P-N defending top10 GC spots.

 

[luckyboy]

Only 1 candidate for this. Vuelta a Colombia, a country with a far more ingrained cycling culture than California (its the 2nd sport there) a race with a lot of history an absolutely amazing parcors and its already hugely important (biggest race for all southamerican teams)

Also they hit their summer in October November.

Edit: and its already a 2 week race.

Can imagine the 18 ProTour teams + 3 Colombian wildcards as I type

 

[bhilden]

The popularity of Formula 1 is largely a result of the great worldwide TV coverage which brings every race into TV's across the globe. Formula 1 owns the TV rights to all of its races so it negotiates as part of the whole series.

The UCI, which runs the sport of cycling, only owns the TV rights to all the UCI-hosted World Championships. Ever other race has to negotiate with various TV networks to broadcast their races. Because of this only a few races such as the Tour de France get global TV coverage. Eurosport has helped this a bit in Europe, but it is not global coverage.

Maybe the sport of professional cycling isn't popular enough to deserve global TV coverage, but if global TV coverage could somehow be accomplished, the sport would grow.

Clearly, there are other factors in increasing the sport's popularity, but TV is a huge factor.

 

[hfer07]

The popularity of Formula 1 is largely a result of the great worldwide TV coverage which brings every race into TV's across the globe.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

F1 is centrally ruled by FIA/FOM. These dictate which rules are gone by, which circuits are raced at and so on.

Cycling is more like sportscars.

Sportscars have a number of regional series, and the biggest event of the year is not part of some ongoing series in which it pays equal importance to all others (such as the Monaco GP); instead it is an invitation-only special event in France in the summer. Because of the high importance of this event, the FIA are unable to dictate fully how sportscars should be run; ACO, who run Le Mans, always have to have a say, because any sportscar team worth its salt would rather win Le Mans than some hastily thrown together series of lesser races.

 

[auscyclefan94]

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe. - like
2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans. - don't understand what he means
3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams. - totally dislike
4.** More focus on prevention of doping, in the first place, as opposed to catching cheats. - leave it for the clinic
5. More team-time trials more often. - strongly dislike, we know why he wants that.
6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer". - i guess it is a good thing.

7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest. - don't understand what this means

8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing. - strongly dislike

9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch. - simply moronic10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points. - stupid, dislike.

 

[The Hitch]

Can imagine the 18 ProTour teams + 3 Colombian wildcards as I type

well when you make a big change you dont do it all at once. Slow and steady.

Obviously you have to make it (since its on the other side of the world) that half the teams are South American. that still leaves a good 11 or so spaces for european teams.

If under the PT for next year system your putting Gt points on a race like that, there will be a demand to race it. the other demand comes from people who feel they havent achieved what they wanted this season.

So give the organisers 12 sports for Colombian/ South American teams, and the other 11 for them to choose from European and American teams.

 

[Yossarian12]

JV's Big Idea

JV should focus on getting his team to win a TdF stage (at least) and a big one day race instead of fixing the sport.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

14. Make "most aggressive rider" a jersey, use it to replace the rubbish "best young rider" classification, which is a classification for riders who are just losing with a caveat. Use the old Giro system of scoring it by number of kilometres spent out in front, but award points inversely according to how many riders are in the break/lead group:

1 lone rider = 10 points per kilometre
2 riders = 9 points each per kilometre
3 riders = 8 points each per kilometre
...
10 riders = 1 point each per kilometre

Awarding a jersey prize would add prestige, and the inverse points reward would mean attacking from the front to make big groups smaller would encourage lots more aggression.

The obstacle is it would be hard to calculate, especially on the move obviously. But surely no harder than the Giro system.

That's an absolutely awesome idea, i really like that Skip

OT: Can that bloody Homefront ad be disabled for me please, I ALREADY HAVE THE GAME!

 

[gregrowlerson]

Nice idea, but it needs to be done carefully. See how fed up lots of fans have got at being told how important the Tour of California supposedly is.

Agree. The current system of measuring the winner by seeing who finishes the race fastest has proven too complex.

The opposite. If they insist on this ProTour thing (and I can see some merit in it) limit it to fifteen teams at most, award places based on merit and allow teams to opt out of their place.

A bit of a platitude, but fine in principle.

The number of team time trials already is perfectly adequate. Make them shorter, though. Individual time trials, on the other hand, need to be far more numerous and far longer.

Maybe I only speak for myself, but I really doubt most fans, casual or not, care a great deal about this. Still, they wouldn't hurt.

The smartest team? I'd say the smartest teams would be the ones who - in the absence of team radios - research the races well in advance and plan strategies accordingly before they race rather than having it dictated to them on the fly by someone in a car.

The smartest teams already win quite often. They plan their attacks carefully and use their riders wisely. Equipment innovation is fine in and of itself, but it should be made equally available to all teams where possible.

Team radios should be removed in my opinion, so no.

As 6. Of superficial interest at best, to me at least. But as a little gimmick, fine.

There is no, and can never be, an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world. There is too much subjectivity in what makes a rider good and which races are important. Again, superficial stuff which I doubt many people care about.

11. Make races routes better to encourage more aggressive riding, giving people a reason to tune in for more than half an hour.
12. Consider reducing the number of riders per team in order to limit the control that any one team can have, again opening the doors to less predictable racing.

We really need to get Skip a powerful position in the UCI!

You have hit the nail on the head with all of these points.

I especially like your final point/idea. Some of the 30 minute gift to Oscar and the Landis big win in Morzine may have had to do with some of the teams being weakend by having less than 9 riders (at least CSC had 8 and T-Mobile 7), hence less control over the race. I would love to see a GT where teams had only 5 riders. It would give more teams (and sponsors.....$$$) entry into the event and lead to less predictable racing. There would also be more team leaders and possibly less super domestiques.

 

[robtclements]

Playing advocates' devil, this plan is a DS trying to making life easy for other DSs. Many of them are meant to make cycling more like F1 motor racing, which might have made more sense 10 years ago rather than in a time where racing are getting pulled from the calendar for cost, political & lack of entertainment value reasons

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe. - Poor idea. Drives up the cost of running cycling teams at the expense of the racing. Does anyone outside the US care who won the ToC? Does anyone in Qatar care who won the ToQ? It's difficult to think of any of these imposed races having any real value, even to the sponsors

2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans. - In other words, only sprint & GC wins. No points, no KoM, definately no most competitive rider prizes. No thank you

3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams. - Absolutely not. Make the teams earn their places, so the best riders can compete for the most important prizes. Let them get sponsor's exemptions if the race organisers want them but not guaranteed roll-ups

4.

5. More team-time trials more often. - Naturally JV wants more of the dullest format in the sport. Much better idea would be to bring crits back to the top-price circuit. Real excitement; not more of the below:

6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer". - Strange. Possibly a good idea, probably with a dubious motivation - seems primarily to distract the audience from what until recently has been extremely dull, DS-micromanaged racing. Also, not sure how this improves on what the motorbike cams pick up, unless JV thinks it would be great TV to pick up riders swearing just as they're about to fly off the side of the Poggio

7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest. -Another solution which seems designed to jack up costs without improving the races themselves. A very F1 approach

8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing. - Possibly the only grounds on which many fans would support the retention of race radios. Shows how desperate JV has become in trying to preserve his metronomic racing

9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch. This is nonsensical. I rely on Eurosports tv cameras for that. So does everyone else

10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points. Sounds good in theory, probably very bad in practice. Probably just another ProTour grab for the Historical Calendar races. Effectively, JV seems to be demanding that only pro teams be allowed to compete to best rider points, which is the insanely F1 argument of the lot. The pro team riders already have a huge advantage in chasing this prize - the least they can do is have to earn it

There's very little in this plan which addresses the real problems in cycling, only one of which is acknowledged in 4. The biggest problem is that cycling has lost the uncommitted viewer (partly because of 4, partly because top flight racing has been strikingly uninteresting in recent years); & that has taken coverage & therefore sponsorship dollars away from the sport. Races are being cancelled & team budgets seem to be tightening. JV's plan doesn't address these issues at all & may may some of them worse

 

[movingtarget]

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe.
2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans.
3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams.
4.** More focus on prevention of doping, in the first place, as opposed to catching cheats.
5. More team-time trials more often.
6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer".
7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest.
8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing.
9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch.
10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points.


1. Easy to say but a big financial committment for the teams and the sponsors. TOC and TDU will grow but Europe has the tradition behind it.
2. Don't agree with this. Do some reading then you will know. It's not that complicated.
3. Disagree. Based on team results only.
4. Keep dreaming.
5. This has to be a joke.
6. Uh no.....
7. Dumb.
8. Dumb.
9. Wouldn't most fans prefer to see their favourite rider on camera and time checks are supplied anyway.
10. Dumb.

He is a obviously a wasted talent. He should be in marketing or working at Disneyland.

 

[Rui Quinta]

Jonathan Vaughters is being one of the most interventive cycling men. I like point 6 and it can be very good for attract new fans. Create races of the highest level outside of Europe can be important too and we saw many people in Quebec streets like years. Whatever, no race must compete with Tour, like was talked in past about a posible USA Tour (coast to coast).

Open radios to the public isn't a good idea, in my opinion, because would decrease the surprise effect to the public. When you watch a race on tv, you don't know who it's fine to attack or who are with bad legs and I believe it's fine like that.

More TTTs... why?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Many of his points are familiar as a track and field fan, but these "paradigm shifts" have very little practical application.

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe. Events outside of Europe already exist. Funds need to entice sponsors, coverage, and of course teams. It can be done, but resources are often mis-focused to compel participation, rather than elicit and encourage it
2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans. Simplifying the sport is not what cycling needs. Racing is already very simple. A bad example is the Visa championship series in track, which compares top performances across all events. In reality, no thrower cares about the results of a hurdles race, and it does little to encourage that little bit that was held back by an athlete. The international golden league was similar, as it was not direct competition. I like its replacement by the diamond league, which is a season long in-event points competition: much more athletes, and thus fans
3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams. This will not ever be addressed in the same breath as reinvigorating cycling. It is an issue of race organizer's and sponsor's rights within the UCI system, which won't ease anytime soon

5. More team-time trials more often.
This would be exciting to watch, but I find myself really only wanting them as unique one day events, rather than imposing them on established stage races.

6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer".
8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing.
9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch.
Again, experience in track shows that technology can be pretty cool. An indoor race in 2009 featured new chip technology that tracked individual runners' paces and velocities. It was surprisingly engaging for super fans to have more data available during and after an US record setting run. Cross country races with live score updates of teams at K splits keep the tension high during a race. Sure cycling is different: but supplementing visuals with tangible statistics give more to the fans, and also more to the commentators to discuss.

7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest.
I think he and the rest of the cycling world will need to redefine strongest riders to include the smartest. In short, I'm a big fan of innovation

10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points.
This is a bad road to focus on. Even though everyone races the same road, there are distinct races being competed. We don't need to send Basso, Contador or Nibali to compete against Boonen and Cancellara on the pave because we know what will happen (bear with my simple prediction). Recognize that there are specialties in cycling and embrace them. Maybe include a crit at the world champs for the sprinters? MTF in a seperate race? Have the winners wear some polka-rainbow jersey for the year? I'm being a little sarcastic, but as I've gotten to above, it doesn't do anyone good to lump everyone together when they are clearly different.

My final note is that these more fringe sports are often reaching out for the common man at the expense of what engages the current fan. I turn off ESPN productions of track meets when I watch a commentator explain what the goal of a relay race is. NASCAR bought into its own identity, and has created a successful culture without "reaching out". Same thing with golf and tennis. Cycling will need to focus on its own identity: doping, macro and micro seasonal competition, and technological innovation in a way that solidifies a culture of competition for athletes (so they don't have to be activists). If I knew how to do that though, I wouldn't be behind pseudonym on the internet

 

[skidmark]

Only 1 candidate for this. Vuelta a Colombia, a country with a far more ingrained cycling culture than California (its the 2nd sport there) a race with a lot of history an absolutely amazing parcors and its already hugely important (biggest race for all southamerican teams)

Also they hit their summer in October November.

Edit: and its already a 2 week race.

No way, there can only be one more Grand Tour for consideration...

 

[VeloFidelis]

1. Easy to say but a big financial committment for the teams and the sponsors. TOC and TDU will grow but Europe has the tradition behind it.
2. Don't agree with this. Do some reading then you will know. It's not that complicated.
3. Disagree. Based on team results only.
4. Keep dreaming.
5. This has to be a joke.
6. Uh no.....
7. Dumb.
8. Dumb.
9. Wouldn't most fans prefer to see their favourite rider on camera and time checks are supplied anyway.
10. Dumb.

He is a obviously a wasted talent. He should be in marketing or working at Disneyland.

Insightful and well considered response... I couldn't agree more. There is nothing that could change or should change that would ever improve the sport.

 

[bhilden]

Originally Posted by bhilden View Post
The popularity of Formula 1 is largely a result of the great worldwide TV coverage which brings every race into TV's across the globe.

You don't think global TV coverage is a major reason why F1 is so popular? We can all get the same F1 experience by reading about it in magazines or on the Internet? The written description of the standing start, passes for position and crashes are just as good as watching it on TV?

You don't think global TV coverage would greatly help the popularity of pro cycling? It certainly made a big difference in the US when OLN/Versus started showing each Tour de France stage live.

I am not advocating organizing pro cycling along the lines of F1. What I am saying is that if there is some way to get global TV coverage that would be a big help in increasing the popularity of the sport.

 

[robtclements]

You don't think global TV coverage is a major reason why F1 is so popular? We can all get the same F1 experience by reading about it in magazines or on the Internet? The written description of the standing start, passes for position and crashes are just as good as watching it on TV?

The problem with the F1 analogy is that F1 was popular; but its been struggling to hold its financial ground for several years. The circus has been propped up in recent years by the fees paid by race organisers in non-traditional countries; but with these races being held (or not being held, as is now the case with Bahrain) in front of empty houses & to declining TV ratings, this windfall cash is drying up fast. It's a bad model to follow - antagonising the base without making inroads to the unconverted - yet this is precisely the model JV is suggesting will solve cycling's own financial crisis. One reserves the right to doubt it