World Series Cycling

[The_Z_man]

While on paper, it sounds like an idea that could compete with the ProTour, unless Rothschild's gets in bed with the ASO, it's doomed from the start.

When the UCI and grand tour promoters got into a ****ing match the last time, it reminded me of how the Indy Racing League broke away from Championship Auto Racing Teams. Eventually they won out over CART because of one factor, the Indy 500. The same thing will happen here. Unless WSC has some of the good races, who's going to watch? Will die hard cycling fans really care who wins a brand new race with no history when they could be watching Milan-San Remo? I doubt it.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

yeah, thier linear approach to the season is doomed.

As much as I dislike the UCI, ignoring the season races with tradition, history and presitige is not a winning approach.

 

[El Imbatido]

And having a heap of 4 day races each with a TT, sprint stage, rolling stage and a mountains stage it would have to be so finely tuned so that one type of rider does not get a definitive edge over the other as to try and keep it exciting through every stage and without having a clear idea who the winner will be

 

[LarsAU]

They would keep the three GT's and six classics.

They would then add the 10 four day races. Presumably there would be 4 competitions to determine the best TT'er, sprinter, puncheur and climber of the season.

It is certainly different from what we got now but I think it could work. Each team would want to have riders for each competition.
A problem is the need for mountains at each race though. Puts a limitation on where they can race.

It could possibly create greater competition in the peloton unlike the situation we are starting to see now, where the best riders seems to gravitate towards a few rich teams.

It is a bit F1-ish in format. Can't really tell if that is good or bad.

If it had gotten off the ground they could have integrated some of the new four day races with some of the existing one day races which would probably have been in the interest of both parties. (organisers get to stay relevant, WSC gets some legitemacy)

 

[riobonito92]

TV Money versus Tradition - that is the question. In some sports tradition has won, in others it has been money.

Which would you rather watch - a new race with all the world's top teams and riders or a Milan San Remo (or even TdF) with only today's pro-conti riders competing?

I would go with the riders, not the event.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

TV Money versus Tradition - that is the question. In some sports tradition has won, in others it has been money.

Which would you rather watch - a new race with all the world's top teams and riders or a Milan San Remo (or even TdF) with only today's pro-conti riders competing?

I would go with the riders, not the event.

I assure you, msr and such races would have no problem attarcting big names still.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

TV Money versus Tradition - that is the question. In some sports tradition has won, in others it has been money.

Which would you rather watch - a new race with all the world's top teams and riders or a Milan San Remo (or even TdF) with only today's pro-conti riders competing?

I would go with the riders, not the event.

I have to agree. I'd like to watch the top riders. If they're racing in the Giro, TdF or Tour de BFE, I don't care.

 

[BroDeal]

TV Money versus Tradition - that is the question. In some sports tradition has won, in others it has been money.

Which would you rather watch - a new race with all the world's top teams and riders or a Milan San Remo (or even TdF) with only today's pro-conti riders competing?

I would go with the riders, not the event.

I would go for the event. A bunch of amateurs racing a Giro-like course would be more interesting than the current pros racing an artificial event optimized for viewing by fatasses sitting on their couches.

When bike events are changed in a quest to make them more spectator friendly it always ends in tragedy. Just look what they have done to XC mountain bike racing. It is one step away from being BMX raced in a stadium. Look at the travesty that is ITU triathlon.

 

[Ferminal]

Pure fantasy, you need the GTs and Monuments so that you can cross-subsidise the other races. Or did they actually think their "four day races" would make a lot of money on their own?

 

[BroDeal]

Pure fantasy, you need the GTs and Monuments so that you can cross-subsidise the other races. Or did they actually think their "four day races" would make a lot of money on their own?

That is the problem. Cycling has too much baggage. A viable season long series would need a bunch of similar races to create a workable points system. I think I would choose a dozen or so seven day stage races spaced one week apart. But the existing events are so ingrained into the psyche of the sport that they cannot be tossed aside, and most of the revenue come from just a few of those old events.

 

[FignonLeGrand]

And having a heap of 4 day races each with a TT, sprint stage, rolling stage and a mountains stage it would have to be so finely tuned so that one type of rider does not get a definitive edge over the other as to try and keep it exciting through every stage and without having a clear idea who the winner will be

I dont understand this part of the idea at all. Why would you have so many formulaic races? I really dont understand how that would create interest and TV revenues. Its not one thing or the other. Doesnt have the interest and narrative of a GT or the punch and impact of a classic.

Who wants to watch 10 or however many TTs? Maybe we do but we are the exceptions as anyone posting on here is really a cycling nut, I really cant see how that would broaden participation or interest.

Someone used an F1 analogy and this aint anywhere near that yet. What you would need is more 1 day races that feasture the heads of state from the GTs or a shoot out for the best rider ala a playoff or somrthing. Combining all the GT and classic winners, maybe that would work as a 4 day format.

Proffessional Cycling is a contradcition in terms and this just adds to my feeling that they are all clueless, both UCI and the teams are so amatuerish. Only people who could realistically breakaway are ASO but not sure its in their interest either.

 

[Anonymous]

For me the parcours is infinitely more important than the riders.

Would rather see amateurs race Lombardia, than the best in the world race Beijing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I dont understand this part of the idea at all. Why would you have so many formulaic races? I really dont understand how that would create interest and TV revenues. Its not one thing or the other. Doesnt have the interest and narrative of a GT or the punch and impact of a classic.

As someone that talks to newer cycling fans, the new fans just don't get the factors that go into deciding a race. Going to a four-day format is a way to package the disciplines and present bike racing to a less wise, and much bigger audience. Wrong and doomed, but people with lots of money loooove sales pitches like this four-day format.

What they needed instead was a block of one-day racing and a block of 3-day stage racing with a variety of stages, not necessarily all four disciplines. They could have drafted a *large* number of demoted UCI events that used to be ranked much higher if they loosened the requirements about the race structure. My vote would be some A.M./P.M. double stages too!

The other fundamental problem is the media production at the event. Given ASO's broadcast gear is used most of the top-tier events in Pro cycling, the production values would need to be much, much better than an ASO production. This above most everything else would have been the key to taming the UCI.

Like some others I am a 'courses' person, so I really don't care too much the who is racing. The way the UCI has structured Pro racing, there's no shortage of starving Pros that would provide plenty of excitement.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Since ASO obviously isn't on board (they would have mentioned it otherwise), it is doomed from the start. You just can't beat the Tour. And because ASO has a very nice calender by just using their own races, it is impossible to create your own calender outside of ASO. And that isn't even mentioning that ASO isn't going to give up the tv money.

 

[Peccio89]

I think all this idea sucks.

The really essence of cycling is tradition, independently of who is racing.

 

[sherer]

Since ASO obviously isn't on board (they would have mentioned it otherwise), it is doomed from the start. You just can't beat the Tour. And because ASO has a very nice calender by just using their own races, it is impossible to create your own calender outside of ASO. And that isn't even mentioning that ASO isn't going to give up the tv money.

exactly. The ASO owns a lot of classic races already, Roubaix, Fleche etc.

They own half of Unipublic who do the Vuelta in Spain and I think they have a stake in RSC as well.

I think this is a case of American's not quite understanding what a classic is.

We already have a world series in baseball we don't need one in cycling

 

[Caruut]

The real essence of cycling is riding hard - not tradition. It just so happens that tradition falls into place because a race needs a reputation to be worth riding for teams and riders.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

For me the parcours is infinitely more important than the riders.

Would rather see amateurs race Lombardia, than the best in the world race Beijing.

Well, you've smashed the **** out of that strawman then. The proposal does include climbing in every race.

 

[BroDeal]

I dont understand this part of the idea at all. Why would you have so many formulaic races? I really dont understand how that would create interest and TV revenues. Its not one thing or the other. Doesnt have the interest and narrative of a GT or the punch and impact of a classic.

The goal is to make a season long points competition the main draw of the sport. To do that a fair points system has to be in place, and such a points system cannot be devised with the current mixture of disparate events. They want people to tune in to see what happens to the points standings, even if the event is not very compelling in the same way that people tune in to watch F1. Ultimately the traditional races of the sport would become archaic or be supplanted by the series. Whoever controls the series would then be able to charge big bucks for the rights to host an event. Television rights for the entire series would of course be sold as a monolithic block. No event would really be worth more than any other.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Salary cap?
Draft?

 

[karlboss]

exactly. The ASO owns a lot of classic races already, Roubaix, Fleche etc.

They own half of Unipublic who do the Vuelta in Spain and I think they have a stake in RSC as well.

I think this is a case of American's not quite understanding what a classic is.

We already have a world series in baseball we don't need one in cycling

The article does mention that the 3 GTs and 6 classics are part of the proposal

 

[Dutchsmurf]

The article does mention that the 3 GTs and 6 classics are part of the proposal

Not really, it gives room for them. But ASO basically has all the TV rights at the moment. Why would they give that up? And why would they allow teams in the Tour that ignore their other races like Paris-Nice and the like?

Without the Tour, no alternative series has a chance of succeeding. The Tour is bigger than the riders in it. Leave out all the current top riders and the Tour would still be the biggest, just with different names.

 

[greenedge]

It would never work. It sounds interesting but a calendar without our fav events like M-SR, TDF, Giro and WC would not be a season but a disaster.

 

[karlboss]

Not really, it gives room for them. But ASO basically has all the TV rights at the moment. Why would they give that up? And why would they allow teams in the Tour that ignore their other races like Paris-Nice and the like?

Without the Tour, no alternative series has a chance of succeeding. The Tour is bigger than the riders in it. Leave out all the current top riders and the Tour would still be the biggest, just with different names.

When I read there is room for the GTs and all will remain 3 weeks, I read that as this WSC has some say hence they are included. I mostly agree, the history of the tour makes it something else, but if the best riders don't turn up for a few years the sheen will fade.

If you set up a rival league, you'd need to coax the stars away with cash, and for the same money the stars will choose the old races... to pay the additional money for long enough to install these 10 races over the traditional races...not going to happen.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Right, so we remember the CART/IRL split.

Do we remember what happened?

IRL at first had the Indy 500 and nothing else. CART had the fans, the better cars, the drivers.

But in the long terms, CART (and later the CCWS) kept the fans, the cars and the drivers, but sponsors demanded an Indy 500 presence. CART teams were invited to the Indy 500 for the first time in 1999, and Montoya and Vasser crushed the field. After that increasing numbers of CART/CCWS teams were drawn across by the sponsorship money until eventually CART and CCWS died off. They still had better cars and more fans, though the driver talent evened out as top teams moved to IRL.

Think of it this way. Cycling is not like F1. It is like sportscars. In F1, the FIA can control everything. In sportscars, it doesn't matter what the FIA do, because the ACO control things because they own the 24h du Mans. Everybody in sportscars wants to be at Le Mans, and the sponsors know they want to cover that more than some random series that few people see. The ACO and FIA may get on well sometimes, argue at others, and start various sportscar series left right and centre but they will never change that Le Mans is the big thing with sportscars, so without that any breakaway is futile in the long term.