Kelli Lusk » Marc & Kelli From USA Cycling: North American Pro XCT?

COSXCRACR

Sorry dude but you are the one that needs to educate yourself. There were only 2 C1 races in 2008 and far less in the previous years if you care to research it. Do you know why there were C1 races in 2008? It's because USA Cycling started leaning on the promoters to make their races UCI races and consequently for 2009, NMBS bailed. NMBS also didn't want to put on XC races without including DH races. USA Cycling pushed to change that for obvious reasons.

Cox. Almost none of the NMBS races were UCI races.The reason. The promoters were not offering enough prize money to inscript . I guess you have forgotten. One of the very few exceptions was Tapatio where the Texas the promoters found some cash to make it a UCI race.

Joe. It's fine being a racer that gives the finger to the Pro Cup races. Come to Texas and do a TMBRA race. You will probable spend little money, probably win if you are top 30 at a US Cup Race, take home $400 and have the results online before dinner time. There are lots of fine organizations that do it better on their own. Boosting the sport for the amateurs is best done at the grassroots level. Most US Pro Cup/NMBS/Norba races treated the amateurs in the lower classes like dump.
The big question is what can USA Cycling do to improve the sport? Obviously some think providing money for the guy that come in 30th is the answer. Maybe it is.

Tex, your logical and your knowledge is questionable to how you can even speak on this topic?
"In the days of NMBS, before USA Cycling got involved, few races had any meaningful pay or UCI points. There were happy promoters. I disagree with lots that USA Cycling does but trying to put together a UCI Calendar is not one of them."

Tex, The NMBS was the only UCI inscripted series after NORBA went away in the US, and anyone who's raced the last 10-15 years knows what happened to that series.
What's happening is that USA Cycling is peddling a product that doesn't make money, US professional XC racing! The guys in the top 30 aren't making ends meet. Just because you get a $50 entry paid, and a $50 motel covered, doesn't mean your a professional or making money.
In western nations, such as the United States, the term "professional" commonly describes highly educated, skilled salaried workers, who enjoy considerable work autonomy, a comfortable salary.
Living in your car or sharing a 1 bedroom with 6 people, eating peanut butter and jelly isn't that appealing to most true "professionals". And as a racer back from the 90's, I have seen it all.
While Mr. Benassi sees a need for both UCI and prize money, he better just focus on the basics of race organization, because after attending the race last year, they have got the spot light on them with a Stage Race and anyone who attended can attest to the fact USA Cycling dropped the ball in their own backyard.

Tex,

"The question is how does the US cultivate a program where we start winning against the World. "
We actually interested in the same thing. USA Cycling's answer has been "emulate Continental programs!" for decades which has gotten us where we are right now.
Colt's done a good job of highlighting the problem and not calling anyone out too much. I heated the topic up, that's for sure. But after 20+ years the sport isn't any bigger? 20 years. Think about that and tell me USA Cycling's unchanged practices don't have something to do with it.

My only contention is the need for a UCI series.I am not sesting paying only 5 deep. I wish they could pay 30 deep. I believe the promoters CAN pay 20 deep and be a UCI race. Marc and Kelli are not promoters and do not have a pay scale. They are just trying to up the races to UCI status to improve US world results and they are now offering some money to races to get UCI points. In the days of NMBS, before USA Cycling got involved, few races had any meaningful pay or UCI points. There were happy promoters. I disagree with lots that USA Cycling does but trying to put together a UCI Calendar is not one of them.

I see the need for both cash and UCI points to attract the Pro's but I don't see why there can't be both at a race--as an example at our race this year in Colorado Springs there is a Pro $10K cash payout that goes 15 deep for the overall and 10 deep per stage for the men. To put that in perspective if a guy sweeps all the races that will be $1500 payout with 80 UCI points--if someone gets 10th place for each stage and ends up in 10th overall they would earn $225 and 25 UCI points. It will be interesting to see if having a reasonable purse with significant UCI points attracts the Pro's.

Tex,

You also conveniently forget that if a racer goes to Europe, 6 weeks of local Continental racing will meaningfully raise the performance of almost any domestic pro. Moreover, they can most definitely fill every weekend with events where they will be in *very* tough races at C2/C3 or even lower levels. There will be some travel, but nothing like trying to hit all stops of the domestic XCT.
6 weeks is about right to see some serious training benefits too.

Can someone explain how UCI points = salary? With points 5 deep like tex is talking about, that would be a C3. Points in a C3 go 5 deep (1st=5 points, 2nd=4 points, etc...) When you look at the top north americans from last year who were taking the top 5 spots at C3's in the US, there UCI ranking would change maybe a spot or two if you took out there points earned in the US. It's all world cup points, and pan am champs, and national champs, etc... Is specialized paying Todd Wells that much more/ year because he earned 12 more UCI points? If that were the case, he'd skip all the PRO XCT's and race C1's in europe every weekend, right?

I bet if you asked the top 10 North American riders in the ranking whether they'd want a 5 race series of C3's or a 5 race series of $10,000 prize money/ event they'd all choose the prize money. Canada sounds like they get it. To be part of the series you have to be a C1, period. 5 spots up for grabs in the Pro XCT go to the highest bidder, that's what I want to see.

If the top pro's need 5 to 6 European-like, World Cup style UCI races with prize money, why don't they just go to Europe for 5 to 6 weeks? Can't be that much more expansive then 5 to 6 round trip tickets all over the US...

Tex,

The pros that show up have the budget to travel. Probably lots of budget. Then the local pro gets a 5->15th place and no money for his effort. Why even bother showing up? The unintended effect is it shrinks the pool of domestic pros from which American UCI-capable riders can emerge.
The "only way" is not UCI style races. That's what USA Cycling has been doing for decades. Why would repeating the behavior change anything?
What harm is being done to the amateur racer?. They are racing elsewhere. What happens if USA Cycling holds a race and no one comes? !cough!Pro XCT!cough!

I've got a new postulate. I think the USA Cycling Executive obsession with everything UCI ends up with USA Cycling doing everything it possibly can to make nice with the UCI and that simply drives away racers.

After a while it becomes obvious that the racers are supposed to enjoy being the cuckhold in a weird triangle with the UCI and USA Cycling. (USAC is the submissive who takes the strap on 'for the racers') The pro's just pretend it's not there and the rest of us just stop participating.