Do all of our races have to only turn left? I don't like this idea. If there is a conflict at one of these last races, you blow your shot at winning the overall by missing the race. I personally missed 2 weekends towards the end of the year for races I got invites to (Vegas and Leelanau). I don't think a rider should have to either miss the opportunity to do a national race or give up a season long pursuit of the UCA title because of 1 or 2 weekends. This might come up next year with TofU and Tour de Gap.

What's wrong with the current system? Is it broken? Are some cyclists complaining that they coulda shoulda been state points leader if it weren't for the other cyclists who raced more often than them? Do Burke, Jeff and even Santerbane type riders feel robbed because their eight races would have won it all if it weren't for the 14 other races they didn't compete in for any number of reasons?

 If the points are a priority to a certain racer, he or she will show up to chase those points. If it's not terribly important they'll go to Vegas, rest a week or do the E100 instead.

Again, I'm a newbie here, but ...

 If a UCA title is what's important to a particular cyclist, let him or her make that his or her priority.

---

I ride, I write.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system. The question is whether it meets the needs and goals of the majority of the UCA or if another system would be preferred by the majority.

I looked over last year's calendar and there were 20 UCA events (counting a stage race as one event) and one event was cancelled (Harvest Moon) resulting in 19 events that were held. I think the calendar was probably about as full as it's going to get but I may be wrong on that.

The proposed change would allow someone who consistently places high in the state to also go to an event outside the state, go on a business trip, attend a family reunion or vacation, and miss a week due to illness or injury and still be in the hunt.

Under the current system, if you miss a few events you can drop significantly in the standings even if you place high in all the other events. As such, high attendance is a key factor. The proposed change will shift some of the weight from attendance to placing high. A person who consistently gets, say, 1st place will likely still need to attend more than 10 races so his or her rival doesn't get too many 1st places. Thus, it will still require racing a good percentage of the races but missing, say, 3 or 4 events won't be devastating.

 

 

MFZ writes that there were 20 scheduled events, of which 10 would count. That's 50%. If only the top 66% in any event ever get points, maybe that's a good percentage to apply to the proposal. I agree with idea of allowing some flexibility for other races vacations, etc. but as for racing out of the series, that is a choice. If a racer wants to do that and still win the in-series title, why should it be made easy to have one's cake and eat it too? So it becomes a matter of degree. To what degree should allowing flexibility have on crowning an in-series champion? And to what degree does that diminish consistency as a desired value.

As for the Nextel thing, it was just food for thought. We don't only turn left; but we do go fast....

---

Steve F.

Steve has a good idea. Maybe the wording of the proposal could be changed to say that two-thirds of the potential UCA events would count toward the title instead of the top 10 events. That would have been about 13 last year. The proposal would need to consider rounding of the number (i.e. how do you count 13.3 events--is it 13 or 14?). I would suggest that we round up (i.e. make it 14).

As for the extent that consistency is diminished, to me, this proposal is saying we still value consistency but we want to put a higher emphasis on a cyclist's ability to place high (on a consistent basis).
 

We plan to amend our original proposal to say that two-thirds of the potential UCA events would count toward the title instead of the top 10 events. If multiplying 2/3rds times the number of UCA events on the calendar leads to a fraction then we would round up to the next whole number. From looking at the preliminary calendar for next year, this would likely make it so 14 or 15 events would count next year.

As I stated before, I redid the results counting only the top 14 races for 4 or 5 categories it only affected two riders:Jeff Louder and John McKone.  The issue is the races you drop have very little and very often no value.  If you miss a race you can't replace the opportunity cost (which could be 50+ pts) by dropping 3 or 4 points.  I like the idea, but in reality it makes the system more complicated with very little effect on the overall results. 

Todd, this is a perfect reason to make the change. If the overall standings stay the same under either system this change allows people to race in more than one category, go out of town to race occasionally or simply miss a race or two without jeopardizing their standing in the UCA title. Under the current system, if you miss a race or two it is very hard to make it up. Having the points be based on the top 2/3rds of the potential races allows for some missed UCA races such as racing in the Tour of Utah.

As for the work you have to do, I can understand why you would consider this to be a pain if you have to do it by hand. However, this is the kind of thing that a computer programmer could easily set up a formula on the website to figure out what the point total of the top X (say 14) races are for each racer. I know Travis no longer works for the UCA but I would be happy to find a student to take this project on and do it in short order. I don't think you should be spending time figuring this out by hand.

One thing to consider: Racers chasing points help bolster the fields at races later in the year. In the masters 45+ this year, Skull Valley and the UCA hillclimb benefitted from riders (and teammates) chasing points. Right?

Claw, I think there are good reasons to think that point chasing will have the same effect under the new proposal as it had on attendance under the old proposal. Here are some thoughts:

First, let's consider who is chasing points under the old system. I would argue that probably only a few racers in each category cared about chasing points at the end of the season for the following reasons:

1. For one, there is no award for 4th place or after. Thus, unless you are in the top 5 and close to the points needed to get a higher place the points probably don't mean a lot.
   
2. As a second reason, if you've missed a few races under the old system then you are out of luck so if you want an award for 1st-3rd you probably aren't going to get it unless you are very close.
3. Last, making up for missed races under the old system is very hard unless the person you're trying to beat doesn't show up.
   

Here are some reasons why point chasing may bring just as many or more people out under the new system:

1. Making up for a missed race is possible under the new system because you can replace zero points with some points.
2. Because of 1 above, your competitors can't just assume, as you say, they have the award in the bag because if they don't show you will get more points than if they show and can beat you.
3. The new proposal is to use 2/3rds of your races so you can't miss that many or have that many bad days. If you flat in a race, get sick for a race, are out of town for a couple of races, and work for a teammate in a race, you now have to show up and perform well at all of the remaining races. The difference is that it won't be impossible to make up for those events so, if points are important, you  will show up to the late season races.

See you tonight!