If you look back on the calendar for several years you see that established races tend to be on the same weekend year after year. I'd guess about 85 - 90 % of the calendar is the same year after year. The first 1/4 of the year tends to be more stable than the rest of the calendar. The biggest changes to the calendar in the first 1/4 of the year tend to be when one of the NRC events changes dates. The reality is that you can look at the calendar for the first part of the season this year and be safe in assuming that the same races will be the same time ( for the most part) next year. Of course a totally new race could pop up but the new events have the toughest time drawing riders and would hopefully be most willing to work with the already established races. I think if Visalia wants to get an early start on working out category coordination then they can start approaching the Land Park/Bariani promoters now since it would be a pretty good bet that these two races will be on the same weekend next year. If one of those two races was going to move I'd guess there is a better chance of Visalia moving to a new date than Land Park/Bariani. I'm not sure how early the non-NRC events start thinking about their race for next year so that might be a problem in doing a mid season scheduling meeting looking at the first 1/4 of next year.

leadout wrote:the price of gas and other fossil fuels do not help either.

For people driving vehicles that get reasonable gas mileage (say, 30 mph), with gas @ $3.2/gallon, and the same number of people share the car as share a motel room, the motel room is still likely more than the price of gas for the round trip, even for 200 miles, and per-person, around the same as the entry fee for 2 people sharing. Of course, for folks driving Escalades and Suburbans, I won't comment, unless they're like 5 to the vehicle. But I agree the further a race, the fewer the fraction of riders willing to participate, for many reasons.

Quote:Here in our great state, i commute year around. the road race season starts january 1 (!?!) and can run to october. that is a very long race/riding season.
I seem to be the only one here who thinks this hurts the health of California bike racing, and, as a result, the turnout to individual events, even if with such a distributed calendar, it results in races having a greater relative monopoly. Recall the Great Britain schedule, I pointed out earlier, where there are 34 races this coming weekend, despite sobering weather. An extreme counterexample, but....

Quote:Would it be possible and worthwhile for the early season events to organize and release a "draft january to may" calander? we could then contact other promoters and try to work out categories.
As I commented earlier, I think this is a key idea to giving racers more opportunities to race with their peers, and takes the pressure off individual promoters to give everyone what they want, an impossible task.

a very nice topic here, thanks all for the replys and insight.

this committee is new to the game, but we all understand the logistic challenges of merced, fresno and finally visalia (although i will be quite curious to see the turnout at this weekends orosi/hanford events). after this weekends orosi/hanford events, we will certainly have a bit of direction.

the price of gas and other fossil fuels do not help either.

i really like the idea of some sort of preference to the nrc calender. i also know that the ncnca has no teeth to limit races. any organization can promote any time, any where (provided all requirements are met).

working with the other promoting organizations will be our best bet and that will be the avenue we pursue. it does not guarantee a better turnout (we could always get rain, or snow, like fresno did last year). i will lobby for better and deeper prize lists, longer races and attempt to limit conflicting categories with any other race that may be scheduled the same weekend.

but we need a lot of lead time to do this. by october, the nrc applications are due. is there a way to start the process of the spring/early season race calender earlier? here in our great state, i commute year around. the road race season starts january 1 (!?!) and can run to october. that is a very long race/riding season.

would it be possible and worthwhile for the early season events to organize and release a "draft january to may" calander? we could then contact other promoters and try to work out categories.

in our world, this is the one and only race weekend that we are pursuing.

would this mid season meeting work?

more fuel to stoke the fire. but this may be fire to light our way.

thanks all!

mjc

I said NRC events, not NCNCA events.

The problem that the NCNCA has with making changes is that everyone already has a preconceived idea about how everything should work and how it will work if a change is implemented.
Just look at your question Casey, it's not even really a question as much as it is a statement based on assumption of how the program might work.

"So you think...?"

I never stated the I had the program all worked out, what I said is that it needs to be managed. Part of the management is implementing programs as Lorri suggests and mediating the promoters to work together.

Example:
Every promoter should have fields that support grassroots racing, Women and Juniors. Obviously in many cases it is not financially feasible to do both. So if the schedule looks like there will be two crits on the same day, some coordination would yield one crit supporting Women and the other Juniors. Instead of no coordination and both crits trying to split a very small pie.

Another way to better coordinate races is that the race schedule should be submitted at the time that the promoter submits for the calendar. That way the communication process can begin right away and solutions developed.

This goes back to the situation where there are 3 races on the same day (June 3rd) Two crits and a TT.
Under my watch there would only have been 1 crit and a TT.
I am also not clear on why RG Promotions who is running a series needs to have one of those races on the same day as a Club's 1-day event that is the primary financial support for that club. Not cool.

A management program would work to create solutions rather than blindly following a rule.

Ron

I checked http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/roa/road_calendar.asp and count 8 events for this Saturday versus 11 this Sunday. And this is just the road racing organization: according to http://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/ , there are an additional 8 time trials on Saturday and 7 time trials on Sunday. Britain's population is roughly 59 million, versus 36 million for California. Normalizing for the phase of the season and the current weather conditions (looking at http://www.wunderground.com/global/UK.html , I would hardly be encouraged to be out riding right now), I think it's safe to say California has the potential demand to support 3 races in one day, if Britain can support 18, with 34 in the weekend...

We need to think bigger. There's cyclists jamming the roadways. Even if you restricted racing to riders with power meters (an absurd notion, but arguably an indication of some level of dedication), I'd guess we could easily have double the density of races, and still fill fields.

Dan

P.S. When checking for the calendar, I was shocked to find a feature on the Webcor women's team. Shameless plug:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/roa/News2007/20070318_Rache...

casey wrote:

so you think it is actually better to limit racing opportunities? I think just like with racing competition forces everyone to do better. I would rather see some level of competition between races on the same day so that races will work harder to improve their events to better attract riders. I think this is better than to give a promoter a monopoly on a certain day where the promoter would have little incentive to improve their event.

I agree 100%. If promoters communicate and are creative with which fields they offer, the racers will come. If we limit ourselves to one race/weekend day, that promoter has no challenge to put on a good race -- his is the only game in town. Not to mention that many promoters are excluding specific categories at some races so that limits the opportunities for some racers to race at all.

Mad Axeman wrote:Rules are just ink on a piece of paper. Paper rips, ink can be whited out.

so you think it is actually better to limit racing opportunities? I think just like with racing competition forces everyone to do better. I would rather see some level of competition between races on the same day so that races will work harder to improve their events to better attract riders. I think this is better than to give a promoter a monopoly on a certain day where the promoter would have little incentive to improve their event.

Mad Axeman wrote:I also think the double and triple bookings got a little out of hand this year. Someone needs to manage that system instead of just letting the cards fall where they may.

The "cards" do not simply fall where they may. Promoters don't want conflicting races but some are more or less restricted (by their town, businesses, other resources...) as to what dates they can choose from, and weekends in the Spring can be especially lucrative for a club if the weather is good. And there is more demand for some weekends than for other weekends.

Tom Simonson spends many, many hours trying to help promoters coordinate with each other and to settle on a schedule that suits all of them as well as possible.

Rules are just ink on a piece of paper. Paper rips, ink can be whited out.

Ron,

The USCF rules don't allow for NCNCA or USCF to deny a promoter a race permit just because there is another event in the same district/region/state on the same day. I suppose NCNCA could have some kind of policy that said only the preferred race on a given day would have access to NCNCA equipment but that would be about the limit of the encouragement NCNCA could apply to the promoters of a second or third race on a given day.

The Land Park/Bariani vs Visalia weekend would pose unique problems though. Land Park/Bariani has been on the same weekend for many years. Visalia use to be in another district and only recently has that race been incorporated into the NCNCA territory. Before Visalia use to have no problems drawing sell out fields against Land Park/Bariani. Visalia lost their momentum when they stopped holding their race. Sometimes the date an NRC race is held is dictated more by the NRC calendar and the powers that run the NRC series than the race promoters.

Does it mean that a well established race(s) have to lose their traditional spot on the calendar just because a NRC race comes along and wants/ is placed on a specific date?

Clearly Visalia hasn't had a problem drawing large fields in the past against Land Park/Bariani. Of course it probably helped Visalia that they were in the S. Cal region and there was no major S. Cal race at the same time. don't forget there there was a large Stage race in S. Cal on the same weekend that probably drew riders away from Visalia. Note at San Dimas there was a $10,000 prize in the 1/2/pros, $5,000 for the Pro/1/2 Women and $1,500 for the Cat 2 men. San Dimas use to be a NRC event in the past. I'm sure the turnout at Visalia would be helped if they had another Mass start race on Sat. instead of the TT

Casey is right to a certain degree as it applies to this race.

I can tell you for myself that the choice not to go had to do with a few factors:
1. Distance
2. Timing/schedule:
a. Just traveled that distance the previous week for an NRC event.
b. After a stage race I wanted to chill a little and just race 1 day.
(it might be a good idea to not have back to back NRC events that are such a distance from the core racers)

3. A TT and a Crit and being individual events are just not that appealing.

On the topic of NRC events, I seriously think we should have some respect for the amount of work that goes into making an event NRC and implement a policy to not schedule NCNCA races on that same weekend.

I also think the double and triple bookings got a little out of hand this year. Someone needs to manage that system instead of just letting the cards fall where they may.

I would volunteer, but I don't think many would like it.
Let me know otherwise and you can pencil me in.
If you want me to do it for 08', just remember it's my way and there is no highway option, consider yourself warned.

Ron

Also the fact that the race hadn't happened for a few years is hurting it now. I always tell promoters of a new race that it will take 4 years for them to establish themselves and for the fields to build to their potential. Visalia is in the same boat as a new race currently and I would expect the field sizes to grow over the next two years. From history new races don't draw as well as established races and it takes the few brave soles who do go to a new race to pass around some positive word of mouth to help bring in more riders the second and third years.

Sabine's comments in the other thread offered more insight as to why the race didn't draw well. It's not just the date. It's not just the location. It's not just the races offered.

But $50 in gas plus entry fees for one race? When a different race that day, or the weekend before, or the weekend after is half that? That's a tough sell.

WarrenG wrote:Going by the number of listed finishers in the masters races at Visalia I'd say that those fields were also influenced by the racing around Sacramento on the same day(s). Roughly 3 times as many 35's and 45's raced around Sacramento as around Visalia.

Hopefully this can get sorted out before the scheduling meeting this Fall.

It seems to me the problem is the race is just too far from population centers to draw a large turn-out for a time trial and a crit.

Time trials tend to preferentially attract the triathlete crowd, rather than the USAC-licensed crowd, so if the time trial is going to be a stand-alone event, maybe broader marketing would help.

Dan

Going by the number of listed finishers in the masters races at Visalia I'd say that those fields were also influenced by the racing around Sacramento on the same day(s). Roughly 3 times as many 35's and 45's raced around Sacramento as around Visalia.

Hopefully this can get sorted out before the scheduling meeting this Fall.

Re the amateur women I hate to say it but currently there just aren't enough Cat 3 and 4 women to have a large turnout at two separate races on the same day. Last year at the Alameda Crit ( on the same day as the mcLane RR) they had to cancel the separate Cat 3 women's race ( due to no entries) and they had less than 10 Cat 4 women.

If you are going to be on the same weekend as Land Park/Bariani you might just let them have the Cat 3/4 women ( maybe in return for Land Park/Bariani not having a 1/2 or 1/2/3 women's category). This way both races aren't trying to split a smaller pool of riders. Maybe use the time not used for the Cat 3/4 women to make some of the other categories longer since longer races might induce some more people to take on the long drive. I think this is a case where both races could benefit by working together to coordinate their schedules a bit.

I am all for that, but it takes 2 to party!

Would SGW give up some of theirs? We certainly would to help amatuer racing.

Quote:- While the pro women responded to the challenge, the amateur women….well, let’s just say that topic will go on forever. Any suggestions?

See the thread below about the SGW Land Park/Bariani weekend...one big event in Visalia for the P/1/2 set, one big event in Sacramento for the 3/4 set. But thank you for having both!