1. Change the old points award for UCA races to the most points in each racer’s top ten UCA events. For this award, one event of the ten will be either the GC points in a stage race or the points for an individual stage or race but not both. Thus, points from placing high in one stage of a stage race are not added to the GC points to determine one of the ten top races.  This will allow racers to race in multiple categories over the season (e.g. Pro 1-2 and Masters) and still be in the running for the award in one category. This would also allow riders to avoid being overly penalized for traveling out of state or missing a few races for whatever reason.  The UCA is encouraging cat 4 and 3 riders to race out of state in order to upgrade.  This proposal would support that effort while still giving an advantage to those that race every race since they would be able to drop their worst races in order to improve their overall standing.

There were exactly 27 races (including stages) that count toward the overall UCA points championship this year. If you want to only count 10 races that's less than half. 

The directors bounced this idea off each other for a while. We found out that their isn't any real change to the results and I feel its doesn't promote racing.  The issue isn't the points you give up. The issue with missing a race for whatever reason (racing out of state, wedding, Honey-do's, etc) is the opportunity cost.  If you miss a race, you miss the opportunity to score up to 70+ points. When you drop 2 or 3 races, you only drop 0-12 points because everyone had DNF's and races with only a few points.  I did a spreadsheet of the top 10 of the 1/2's, 3's and 45+.  The only people that moved places were Jeff Louder and John McKone.  They scored well in all of their races and had to drop big point values.  I think they both had to drop a 2nd or 3rd place.  So should we only penalize those who are the most successful?

I did my spreadsheet a couple of different ways: 1)Dropping your lowest two point races and 2)scoring your top 14 races.   I figure if you go below 14 races then we aren't promoting bike racing in Utah and our numbers will suffer.

The most races attended I believe were either 15 or 16,not including individual stages, which we can't count because only 5 places are scored, so everyone would drop individual stages and zero points.  Thanks by the way to Dave Harward and Don Armstrong for their top attendance!

I like the idea on the surface, but in reality, dropping a couple of points with no real effect isn't worth the lower attendance numbers we would probably see.

Here are a couple of quick thoughts.

First, I question how many people come out to chase points. Maybe the top 5 in the points race but more likely the top 3 are all that are really concerned and attending because of the points. Thus, I doubt it will affect attendance much.

Second, you might increase attendance by someone who normally races 8 races a year and, in the past hasn't worried about the series because you can't miss a race and win it. We have some Masters racers who are in the top 3 in almost every race but only do 6 races a year. If they knew they only had to do a few more to win the UCA award they may come out and do that.

Third, the people who come to every race to chase points will likely come to every race anyway. This will allow them to go to other categories though and may make the other fields more competitive at times. For example, I would like to jump around some in the Pro 1-2 in some races and Masters in others.

Last, this award has turned into an attendance award in some cases. I would think that the award ought to be given to someone who can consistently place high in the races. If not, we ought to call it the UCA attendance award!
 

An attendance award?????

Jeff Louder did 7 UCA events this season (of 19!!) and finished 2nd overall.

I agree that if you attend every event, you have an advantage - but that is by design to encourage people to show up and race!

However, the top finishers will come out on top in the end.

I originally was indifferent to this proposal.  But Claw brought up a good point that if you are in need out of state races to upgrade, you'll be more about upgrade points and UCA points (which will be lost once you upgrade anyway).

I will have to dig into the numbers a little more, but looking at this quickly, it appears the only change to any of the  overalls would be in fact, 2nd place (Mark Zimbleman) would jump over Don Armstrong in the 45+ race.  Sorry to have to point that out Mark.  Bryson would still edge out Jeff Louder in the 1/2's.  I dig into the overall picture a little more over the weekend.

 

As I do the math for the 45+ races, Don Armstrong would be one point behind me. So technically, you're right, I would have taken 1st. However, this analysis doesn't show that Don worked for me to help me get extra points when it was clear that he had 1st place wrapped up and I was in a race for 2nd. For example, in Sanpete we had three teammates come across the finish line including Don Armstrong, Gary Porter and I. Don and Gary told me to take 1st so I could have the points.

Even so, you're right in pointing out that this would put me in contention for 1st even though I missed several races during the season. I've heard Don and many others say this award should be for a limited number of races instead of every race. Maybe 10 isn't the right number. Ferg once suggested 14. I know this much, if John McKone would have raced 10 races in the 45+ and we used this method to calculate the award then he would have been on top. He was almost undefeated in both the 35+ and 45+ races. However, he won't get any UCA award because he moved around to different categories. Also, Mark Schaefer would almost take over 3rd using this method even though he didn't have 10 races. Another person who would be rated much higher in the 45+ group is Mark Skarpohl. All these guys do limited races during the year but are consistently in the mix at the finish line.

One more thought. Even with this proposal, someone who is in the top will need to keep coming to a lot of the races so his competition don't get too many points. In other words, it may not stop the point chasing all that much. It would just make it possible to miss a few races or to race in another category for an event or two without dropping out of contention.

I looked at Jeff Louder and Bryson Perry's points and Jeff would be very close to Bryson even though he would only have 7 races. His top 7 scored more points than Bryson's top 7. As such, if Jeff wanted to win the award (I doubt he cares) then he could probably win it if by coming out three more times. However, he would probably need to do 10 or 15 more races to win under the current system.

I should research a bit more before I open my mouth (or computer).  It was not a dig on you Mark.  The top 6 in the Pro 1/2 would signifigantly be changed.  I'm not sure if this is good or bad.  The first 6 riders this year in order were: Bryson, Louder, Harward, Nate, Sandy and Myself.  With this proposal, if would go: Bryson, Jeff, Sandy, Dave, Todd and Nate. So Sandy would jump from 5th to 3rd. I move up from 6th to 5th. Dave drops from 3rd to 4th and Nate drops from 4th to 6th. 

My initial feeling is if this is a season long series, I don't feel like a rider like Sandy that was here for 1/2 a year should bump a rider like Dave that was there week in and week out.

My two cents.

 

Why not do it like Nextel Cup? After 2/3's of the calendar is complete, take the top ten overall points riders and stack them downward from 50 to 5 and let them duke it out over the last 1/3 of the calendar. Bring out all kinds of races within the race and scenarios never imagined.

---

Steve F.

I agree with the Nextel Cup scenario.

---

sit in all day and wait for the sprint?
no...go hard from the start

Thank you pdkom. The Nextel cup racers race as teams, and like another post mentioned they also will let a team mate finish ahead for points, even though they have the better car....interesting parallel.

---

Steve F.

I don't totally understand how your Nextel deal works, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for bike racing where ability goes through peaks and valleys throughout the season.  I don't see the benefit of making the 'end' of the season in August and then encouraging 10 riders to show up to the last bunch of races.

Again - I may just be uneducated about the Nextel system, but if I interpreted the posts below correctly, I don’t see the benefit.

See: http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/01/22/chase.changes/index.html

Essentially only the top racers have a chance at the season championship. While the rest of the pack would surely compete for race wins, the top 10 (or 12 in Nextel) would be reset so that racing the complete calendar would be necessary to win overall. When the top UCA racers show up with their team mates it looks like more participation than less. Typically the season ending races are not as well attended. Anyway, I'm not that serious about this. It just seems like the whole points thing is narrowed down to 1 or 2 guys by August anyway, and some have such a big lead they don't even need to race.

 

---

Steve F.