Good points colt.

There's been some good research by IMBA showing that the US has more mtn bike riders than golfers. Trails and race courses vary a lot more than golf courses, but the avergare recreational mtn biker should be able to appreciate and admire pro racing. Figuring out the best ways to market the races may be the million dollar question.
Stating that pros arent that much better than everyone else is crazy - i race pro and i'm always amazed at how fast the top riders are. Tiger woods and golf more exciting to watch than mtn bike racing? I'm sure that is the case for most lazy Americans - and that won't change anytime soon. But to most of the weekend Warrior riders out there (and they are out there) - I'm sure good racing coverage would beat golf any day.
So hopefully the good ideas keep flowing and racing is used more heavily to promote bikes, clothing, foods, and more to this market. All forms of coverage are good for the sport - magazine, internet, video, meet and greets at shops...

Colt,

Just wanted to say there were no skags intended with my "not that impressive to watch videos" comment! It was actually in reference to Clint's MTB home videos on our point-and-shoot camera. ;-)
I've really enjoyed your coverage of Nationals and am impressed how you've documented all the different events... even as they were taking place simultaneously! I was focused on the XC races so it's been great to go back and see everything else from last weekend. Keep up the good work!

Chuck,

Thanks for your thoughts! It's very interesting to hear your view as a non rider/racer. I think some of the people who call the shots are starting to see your point. There is a lot of talk about having a Pro only series or Pro only races next season. One Male and Female winner.

You mentioned auto racing and having a clear winner. There are thousands of race tracks around the USA and races taking place probably every day. All these Nascar drivers were at one point their sports own version of "Cat 1, 25-29 National Champion." I'm sure there is all sorts of classes and as many champions as there are different models of race cars. Only they don't hold all those other races at the same venue, on the same weekend as the Daytona 500.

It works for other sports, but would it work for MTB racing? Would people come out to watch if they couldn't race the morning of, or the day after? Would that be good for developing riders to be separated from the Pro level racing? Not under the current structure it wouldn't... That said, a lot of the problems we face come down to trying to cater to both the Pros and Joes at the same races.

Clint, you mentioned stadiums... What about big city parks. A mix between STXC and XC style courses. Hell, add some jumps and option lines. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Boston... What if instead of hiking up the mountain, people could watch out the window of the bar across the street??? As a non-pro, you pay your entree fee and you want a good course. As a Pro, you don't get paid to ride your bike. You get paid for marketing. You're a salesman first. Where better to advertise then the most dense populations.

The sport has a lot better chance of being on TV if you don't have to make the camera man carry his equipment 5 miles into the middle of the woods....

And Jen, investing in a good camera man is a good idea. Simply loving Mountain Biking in no way qualifies me to work a camera. Until I can afford to pay a pro, I'll try and get better...

I'll jump in, too.
.
I'm not a rider / racer or any other type of athlete. I started reading this thread because Clint Claassen (my son-in-law) pointed it out to me. Though I'm not involved in sports, I have been involved in business for a long time.
Big prize money has nothing to do with "respect". It has everything to do with sponsorship. Sponsors want visibility -- just look at any NASCAR item these days. You can't hardly see the car / helmet / Nomex suit / glove or whatever for all of the advertising logos. Sponsors want lots of people to see their logo and identify it with someone who is a clear winner.
MTB doesn't lend itself to producing clear winners. Clint won his XC MTB race at the nationals in Colorado last weekend. This was terrific! Being unfamiliar with MTB races I wanted to understand what this meant so I asked a few questions. What I learned is that Clint had won the men's, Cat 1, 25-29, XC race. Please understand that I have TREMENDOUS respect for Clint, the abilities he has developed, and the commitment he has to his sport. But I still wasn't sure what this meant.
I asked what was the difference between racing in the Pro class and the Cat 1 class. It didn't seem to be money but rather focus. I asked about how Clint's time compared to the times for those in the Pro class. I learned that they rode different courses and therefore the times couldn't be compared. I compared a little bit across the age groupings, but I didn't ask if they rode the same course and therefore if the times could reasonably be compared. On top of all these questions, I already understood that there is a world of difference between winning XC, Super D, or DH races. And I already understand why there would be age and gender differentiation. But there were what, 40? different gender / event / class / age groups? It's hard to identify with 40 different winners unless they are all on a single, organized team playing one specific game. This set up is not attractive to sponsors and therefore will not attract much money.
Now compare this to auto racing -- say the Indy 500. The cars must meet very strict specifications. No gender or age differentiation is involved. Theoretically, anyone who can afford to build a qualifying car and can show the proper level of race car driving ability can enter and win the race. It is simple. The first person/car across the finish line (ignoring for the moment potential time penalties that can be but are rarely assessed) wins the whole thing. This concept is easy to understand.
Take golf. There is gender differentiation, a bit of age differentiation, and qualifying criteria, but the field remains pretty broad. And the one person completing the course with the lowest number of strokes (again ignoring the rare penalty) wins.
Sponsors can hitch their brands to clearly identifiable winners. Sadly, the nature of MTB racing does not easily create clearly identifiable winners. The nation seems to pay attention to sports with multiple age / weight / gender / event dimensions only during the Olympics. But the athletes don't get the sponsor's money -- various levels of Olympic Organizing Committees get it instead. And then the competition is often more about which countries get the most medals and a tiny bit less about the individual and their skills, dedication, focus, and abilities.
I'm guessing that if MTB were restructured in such a way as to provide clear winners from a larger pool of athletes, it could begin to line up some sponsors. But at that point you may not like the sport anymore.
So, it isn't about respect. I SERIOUSLY respect anyone who can ride as hard as and for as long as is necessary to win a major XC MTB race at the national level. I just don't see how that respect gets translated into major sponsorship.

I wanted to share some thoughts my wife Jen had on this topic too. She's not a racer, but fully supports me as spectator/pit crew/etc. I'll just paste our conversation here: Jen: i think one of the reason's MTB as a major sport hasn't really caught on is because the layman can't appreciate it the skill it takes, so (s)he doesn't care think about it everyone knows how hard it is to run 26 miles we can't do it so we appreciate watching people that can i can't tackle ppl in football i can't hit a home run i can't bike as fast as the peleton in the TdF and i know this so i admire watching people that can no one realizes how hard it is to bike well, mtb and no offense, but it's really not that impressive to watch videos me: avg joe doesn't know the difference between the rusty old cruiser in the garage or the carbon 29er a pro races and how fast a pro really rides, and how far 25 miles on a mtb really is Jen: you really don't look like you're going fast no one can appreciate it so they don't care and honestly, it's not that exciting to watch no offense you're grinding up a climb or coming down a steep hill and going (what looks to be) slow now if you invested more in good cameramen, maybe cause they've made entertaining videos i enjoyed roam and seasons but that was crafted over the span of a year, not just one race they don't use the phrase "it's like riding a bike" for nothing just riding a bike is easy but not MTB but people don't realize how different it is you don't go lightning fast like road bikers so who cares? (no offense) that's my take me: yeah good points Jen: and as far as the ameaturs sticking around to watch the pros there's no... vibe it's a few scattered people you need masses you can feel the energy as the leaders come down the track cause everyone's getting excited me: and the whole "i just did it too, and not THAT much slower" idea Jen: yeah me: and there's not much "drama" either because everyone gets so spread out Jen: and it's hard to get to the course! i don't like hiking up a huge hill to see a few guys roll by

I think a pretty good short track course could be built inside football/baseball stadiums, even basketball arenas! They do it for Supercross, why not MTB? You can get enough climbing, traversing, downhills and flats if a dirt and rock course was built/filled in along the seating areas. Yeah it would be artificial, but they built rock gardens in Beijing too. Could be a pretty big stage setting for MTB.

OK, Ill bite

What is the problem? That pro racers dont get paid much? Or that pros are not respected (as evidenced by fewer people watching) by the working-class cyclists? Or that amateur racers dont care about watching the pros?
These are each separate issues.
The amount of money a pro athelete makes is related to the value signing them provides to their sponsors. Gary Fisher seems to be doing pretty well selling a lot of 29ner race bikes this year, as is Specialized selling Carbon Epics. So there is obviously value being added by JHK, Sam Schultz, Heather Irmeger, and Todd Wells to their sponsors. But the incremental revenue these pros provide their sponsors is miniscule in comparison to selling golf equipment and stadium tickets.
Are pros not respected by working-class cyclists and racers, evidenced by low spectator turnouts? Mountain bike racing is simply a poor spectator sport. Compared to golfing or an NBA game, a spectator only sees a few minutes of a race from any one location on the course. In some of the most exciting course sections, the racers go by in only a few seconds. Again, value is determined by the return on investment. As spectators we have to hike around in the hot sun for many hours to see a few minutes of racing by the top pros. Sure a lot of us love to do it, but our turn-out is low in comparison to our numbers because its kind of a low return on effort. BTW, the free ski lift at this years nationals was a fantastic way to get more spectators around the course.
In my opinion the part of the sport that is under valued are the amateur cross country race divisions. From our perspective it seems the national level races focus heavily on the pros and the development programs of young riders. However, we have the numbers, we spend more money on equipment and traveling to race venues and we are the majority of racers attending cross country races.
Ive only attended a few national level events and those have only been this year, but in comparison to series races in Colorado such as Winter Park and Mountain States Cup races, I find the local races get it and do a much better job catering to the amateur divisions. It doesnt seem like it has to be that way. I heard someone say that the US Cup awards for amateurs were in the mail and there were no planned awards ceremony.
Related, I was surprised by the low number of racers in my class at the National Championships. The top five guys were really fast, but at any given Winter Park or Mountain States Cup race Ive found deeper fields of faster racers. This tells me that there are many amateurs that dont take the National Championships seriously enough to attend. Or perhaps the low turn-out is a result of lack of marketing to the amateur divisions; a missed opportunity?
I also noticed that the announcer at the Nats did little to promote the racers in the amateur divisions, not even announcing the groups that were starting. In comparison, Mountain State Cup races make an effort to call out racers names when they come through each lap and when finishing. How hard would it be to track who the top riders are in each class as they come through? Ok, maybe pretty hard, but do-able.
Aside from the missed opportunities to promote the amateur divisions there is a different culture within our amateur ranks that exhibits levels of sportsmanship and camaraderie that I dont see in the pro ranks. Working-class racers have a lot in common with each other and dont draw much inspiration, aside from race-pace, from our pro cousins. Watching a pro mountain bike racer doesnt draw the type of awe that watching Tiger Woods place 100 yard chip shot five feet from the hole does. Pro mountain bike racers are not significantly better than we are aside from going up hill faster. My point is that promoting amateur divisions may require a different understanding and approach than promoting the professionals.
Im a big fan of the pros in our sport. But I think the sport could be healthier if there were more focus on improving the experience for large family of amateur racers. And I think there is ample opportunity for that to occur, especially at the national level.

Sh**... why didn't I think of that? Well, maybe the appeal of the marathon is that it is accessible to so many?
Personally I couldn't stand to partake in or watch a marathon. I mean, if people will watch that why wouldn't they watch a walk-a-thon? It'd be exactly the same only the pace would be slower. You probably wouldn't be able to tell they were slower on tv though.
I think that if we can improve the coverage of MTB racing there would be enough people watching that it would greatly impact the sport for the better.

"Standardized" is in the eye of the beholder. We're all wrapped up in the nuances of the sport, when it's actually pretty cut-and-dried. I've always explained mountain bike racing to folks with an analogy to competitive skiing. "There's Cross Country, Downhill, and Slalom. Fastest competitor wins." Everyone understands that.

Good point. Perhaps a slightly more standardized format would be easier for the layman to understand?

I find it interesting that one of the three examples at the beginning of the post is marathon running. That kind of blows the doors off of the "not a spectator sport" theory. I guess marathons do get some TV coverage, but it's definitely no much of a spectator sport.

Honestly, I'm not completely sure why top runners make more money than top mountain bikers, but it would be interesting to look into. Obviously, running has much larger base of amateur participants, but I wonder how many of them know Gebrselassie from JHK. I think it has much more to do with the recognizability of "the marathon" to corporate sponsors, whereas I don't think the average person on the street even really understands what mountain bike racing is.

I like what "PR Man" has to say but then Ken, what are you advocating as the solution?
In other words, where do we start in your opinion?
I think most people would agree with not diluting the prestige of winning a race by following the "everyone's a winner" mentality that is reducing racing (and much of America) to the opposite truth... everyone's also then a loser.
And only sandbaggers like sandbaggers... but then where does it start and where does the money come from?
I'm only asking because you're the first person I've talked to that's run a financially successful MTB series I guess.

Here's the tipping point for when prize money will be enough to get the attention of the mainstream press: $10,000 to win. a race. Not a $10K purse, not $10,000 to win a series, but ten grand to win a race. Make a big deal to a big city reporter about less than that and you might as well advertise on "find a date dot com" that you have 14 zits -- it's not what you want to advertise. The thing is, cycling in America has lost the prize fight mentality that we used to have when we wore wool shorts and toe straps and the schedule was dominated by crits. It's no longer about trying to win more money than you spend. Now it's all about scoring "points" that are politically annointed to certain races to qualify you for a "camp" (which you have to pay for) so that you can be selected for a "long team" from which you are selected to go to a European camp (which you also pay for) so that you can score different points so that you can conceivably improve your chances of being selected for the long team from which coaches can now select whoever they want without being sued for one race where you can't advertise your sponsors that's held once every four years that supposedly everyone cares about but isn't actually televised in this country. If that sounds a lot like how things were run when the O-games were purely amateur, you're right.

"Professional" does not necessarily mean "races for cash purses". Professional is an attitude of trying to make a living, or at least a profit, from your racing instead of chasing a dream and running up credit card debt. That sometimes means cutting costs by running XT instead of XTR and opting for durable equipment instead of the latest bike bling. Most likely, it means cutting down travel and rewarding local promoters who put up decent purses. Developing and marketing good paying, highly competitive professionally run regional series is the key to developing the sport in this country. "Regional" doesn't mean "small potatos". Gravity East runs from Virginia to Main. Look at a map, that's about the same distance as the Alps through France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. MAC cyclocross will probably have over $60,000 in prize money this year, and last year it had more UCI points than all but 5 other COUNTRIES. (Disclosure, I am the PR rep for both Gravity East and MAC). Look, the success of Golf as a pro sport isn't that some creature like Tiger Woods (I've watched him play, he ain't human) can make millions of dollars -- it's that hundreds of players can make a reasonable living playing not only on the PGA, but also on the lesser tours (and can still make a good living as a club pro if they don't make it on tour). Also, golf doesn't dilute its championships by giving a green jacket to the winner of the "novice age 30-35 over 250 pound category" and the Masters Champion in golf means something different from cycling, where it means "fastest of the fast guys who either aren't too fast or sandbagged all year and so they wouldn't win any UCI points." But I digress...

I can see it now 'Geoff Kabush signs new deal with Rocky Mountain Bicycles worth up to $8,000 and gas money!!!'

More race videos like you've been putting up! I just think that cycling needs better coverage... bring back short track and capture it on film like you did at Sea Otter, the women's coverage with Heather Irmiger wearing the helmet cam was GREAT!
More prize money, definitely, but for that we need sponsors and sponsors will want media attention. I guess if we build it they will come, so good on ya Colt, for building the best media outlet yet!!!!!!

Maybe we ought to take a page from the DH book. They've already got novelty cheques and everything. Their heroes are in films and magazines. Becoming more spectator friendly would definitely help. I can only think of one XC documentary: Off-Road to Athens and it was fantastic!! I would love to see more like it. With most World Cups already scheduled around the same time as DH I don't see why XC racing couldn't piggy back more on those events. Maybe switch XC racing to Saturday so venues aren't so deserted after the the DH Racers and their crews/fans take off after their events. I've got MSA in mind with that last comment.

But really, I think this site also helps hugely. All the BKAPs are awesome and satisfy a growing appetite to know more about our sport's creme de la creme. So keep up the photos/videos/interviews!

Colt, Awesome site! Great to talk with you at Hop Brook. Thanks for the shout out. JB

Remember this?

Jeremiah Bishop donates his prize money
http://www.bikemag.com/features/onlineexclusive/JB-Bicycle-Relief/
It's fantastic that JB donated his winnings. Awesome. But c'mon, $380 to win a National? How sad is that USA Cycling/NORBA/NMBS?

Couldn't agree more. The vast majority of pro mountain bike racers barely make ends meet. Most are lucky to get expense money let alone a salary. USA Cycling needs to take the lead in pitching the sport to major corporate sponsors. The sport cannot thrive without sponsorship from outside the bicycle industry.

Hey Colt. Interesting topic for sure. Recently getting into racing a bit I have found myself wondering who these guys really are. I'm curious about basic things; like what does it really take to become a pro. How do these guys get so fast. I would easily be inspired by just hearing about the suffering/sacrifice that happens to make these people the athletes they obviously are. I think that the lack of money and attention has a lot to do with the difficulties in making mtb'ing a good spectator sport. I'm excited about watching a event when I know what's going on...the story at the front. That's a difficult story to tell in most venues. I watched the short track race at nationals in Sonoma CA last year and that was the closest thing I saw to generating that kind of excitement. Attentive spectators + Advertisers = $$.