If the race is on a good course in the central Bay Area it would not surprise me if participation was nearly double what it's been in the past.

But if the race is held closer to the Bay Area where more riders will be attending the race then the chance to combine fields will be reduced. Even with the currently combined fields the crit takes pretty much all day just to run the master categories.

Keep in mind that not all age groups ride separately. The men above 55 are combined and similar takes place for women over 45(?), so the number of fields isn't 18.

For the masters championships you need a promoter who is interested in hosting them and is willing to pretty much run a masters only program, especially for the Crits which takes up the day running all the separate ages groups.

If I understand the process correctly, it is irrelevant what course riders think the championships should be held on, as it is a matter of the promoter expressing interest to host.

I do not know how it is decided if more than one promoter expresses interest. I am not even sure if that issue has ever come up.

Ron

My earlier statement that Watsonville is more viable for a Masters championship stems from Masters Road Nationals being held from June 28 to July 4th this year. Since Burlingame is June 28th, and Davis is July 4th, neither would favor a lot of masters who make both Nationals and States a priority. And also Elite state criterium and track were on the same day/weekend this year---August 29 to August 30th.

Masters State Track could be either the 2nd or 3rd weekend in July in 2010. I try to schedule the event about one month before Masters Track Nat's, and at least two weeks away from the Masters road/criterium States.

IMO, if the masters state crit/rr are held in the Bay Area the promoter(s) will see plenty of income from the event(s).

Masters State Track is normally the 2nd weekend in July. Burlingame, Benicia, Oakland are favorable due to that they present more ideal conditions to race in. May is far too early to be deciding a championship.

It would be great to see the championship course locally. Certainly, more racers will show. However, a variety of courses should be entertained over time to allow for all types of racers to be competitive. Menlo Park or Pleasanton (formerly Joseph Mendez) favor different athletes than Watsonville or Burlingame.

Masters Nationals have conflicted with Burligame and Davis in the past; Watsonville may be more viable since it has a hill and some technical turns.

It be better served to have the Masters Criterium Championships be on a course like Burlingame, Davis or Watsonville.

I believe that should the Master's Criterium championships be held at the location Ron suggests, it'll have adequately sized fields to make it profitable to the promoter. (As long as the date doesn't conflict with some other important Master's event.) Even though it isn't a technically challenging course, the wind plays a huge factor in which breakaways can stick.

Generally since the championships have drawn larger fields there hasn't been any additional financing from NCNCA. The only times NCNCA has given financial support to the championships was

1) When the Sattely TT course needed to be surveyed for possible records.

2) When the Dist Rep use to put on districts and at the time the USCF only allowed the Dist Reps to keep 50% ( or possibly less) of the entry fees.

As best as I can remember since the Dist Reps and then later clubs could keep all the entry fees from districts NCNCA hasn't provided and funding, except for the Track districts the past couple of years and part of that funding was also to cover the separate Nationals track qualifying event.

Normally the NCNCA budget for the year is done in january and the new board can fund programs how ever they want.

Good points.

Casey, Lorri asks a great question.
Building on her observation about participation from spectators, I was thinking about ways to hype up the race to the public. Like getting the Chamber of Commerce involved, and perhaps some marketing.

Any chance the NCNCA could toss some of their marketing budget into this? I think spectators would be interested in seeing a championship event, and our course has some great spectating shade.
It may get even inspire some new racers seeing older guys going for it.

I would definitely not suggest having the Women's and Men's District Championships at separate events on the same day. There are too many folks who would be involved in both (ie SOs who both race). This would also discourage high participation from spectators. If the District Championships are held in a high-population area (like the bay area) this is the ideal opportunity to really drum up sponsorship and spectatorship.

As far as bread + butter, agreed that income would be lower since there would be few (if any) opportunities for folks to race twice in the day.

Casey, has there ever been NCNCA financing available for the District Championships to help off-set additional expense or reduced income?

Lorri,
I see the logic in the idea and it makes sense. The real hurdle is getting course approval back to back. For the Pleasanton course I do not see this as an option. As in it is less than not likely.

If approved for Masters on the Pleasanton course (formerly known as the Joseph Mendes Criterium) we would be happy to structure the races to what ever requirements there are.

One possible idea is for another promoter to consider have the Women's district crit championship on the same day that way everyone gets to play and there is no real field overlap.

I would like to squeeze in a non-championship field or two if logistics allow. After all we need a little bread and butter too.

Ron

One thought that's been tossed around among promoters (for any criterium, not just district championships) is to run the same race for two days. This would open up a given race to even more categories and still allow promoters to include longer races. In this case, maybe run the championship fields on Saturday and then run the traditional fields on Sunday.

This is an interesting concept to me as the promoter of a race that sells out every year. There would be certain expenses that would remain constant and others that would be based on time/days, but I think overall (without actually budgeting it out) it would make financial sense. From an income perspective, you would still see racer double- or triple-dipping, although with a championship event it might mean racing on two different days.

Casey, is there a suggested window on the calendar for various championship events? In other words, what months during the season are optimal for championship events (including elite, masters, and juniors)?

Thanks to John Pliska the scheduling form is now a fillable form so you don't have to print it out to fill it out. Thanks John.

Most likely if a new race is to be the Masters Crit championship then that race wold have to adopt the format of only offering masters categories ( or maybe like the present Masters Crit championship offer only one non masters category). There are to many master categories that have to be run ( and if each of those races is run for a deserving length) to have a schedule that includes several non master categories along with all the master categories.

Ron, since your crit included junior categories and no women's racing, I assume you would be changing this if chosen as the masters district championship?

Mad Axeman wrote:I sent ours in, hope it was received.
Would consider Masters Crit Championship if the idea is popular.

Cheers,
Ron

Which race would include the championships?

I sent ours in, hope it was received.
Would consider Masters Crit Championship if the idea is popular.

Cheers,
Ron