The great thing about the scheduling meeting on Monday night was having too many races for the amount of weekends we were working with - what a great problem!

Lord help me for agreeing (publicly) with Jesster, but I have definitely enjoyed this race the last 2 years. I even forgive Jess for sitting up during our truly magnificent break on the first lap, only to leave me in the hail during the last 1.5 laps.

I like the sound of the changes. Maybe this is a benefit of having so many races? The open market makes everyone a bit more competitive and inventive in attracting racers. The addition of the Omnium was cool last year, and knowing that there's a TT makes the drive seem all the more worthwhile.

I just pulled this number for a work-project: California has 9618 USCF card-holders (closest #2: TX with 2989). That's a big pool.

The Jesster wrote:Speaking for the Clydesdales, I have to express my disappointment that grade of any kind is being added to CVC. As long as that nice, absolutely flat circuit existed on the schedule, I could justify not losing those 20 pounds (of pure muscle) during the training season. Now what do I have to believe in?!?

Jesster, you will be happy to know that there are no hills in the Criterium. Still flat as a pancake. Also, the time trial has a couple of hill, well, more like a couple of bumps. But if you're going fast enough you can just roll over them. The hills are at the end anyway, you got 7 miles of tailwind flats to roll the 55-11.

Finally, the RR course is new, and at this time we cant release any details yet. They should be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks. If you're an old-timer and remember the old Madera Stage Race RR course, you will be familiar with many of the roads.

It will favor an all-around power rider, not a pure climber or pure sprinter. This type of course is perfect for a 3-day stage race, as it will probably come down to the last day before the GC is decided.

We picked a new course for a couple of reasons: 1) the Kearney course was a good course but very difficult to manage from a logistics standpoint, 2) There is already a fairly flat NRC race the week before (MERCO) and we wanted to distinguish our RR a bit, and 3) the feedback from the Pro field was mixed about the difficulty of the Kearney course, especially for an NRC event.

Since the course is new and we've never managed it before, we moved the RR to Friday, and limited the fields. As of now, we will run a Pro/1, Pro/1/2 women, Elite 2/3, and Masters 35+ 1/2/3. It will also be the first stage of a 3-stage race, and it will be timed. Masters 35+ guys, we now have an early-season timed stage race for you.

If the RR goes well, we may open it up to more categories the following year.

Saturday will be the Belmont Piedra ITT. It will be open to all categories as a 1-day event, and will also be the 2nd stage of the stage race. You'll get to see if you really are faster than Chris Baldwin or Ryan Blickem on the TT bike.
Sunday will be the Tower District Criterium, same course as in years past, and will also be a 1-day event for all categories and the final stage of the stage race.

jonathan

Here's my 2¢

1. Tom, thanks for working with us on the dates. I honestly think that we (CVC and Pilarcitos) want the same thing, top quality racing in NorCal. We'll always do our best, and I think we've both been pretty good up to this point. In return for your generosity I'll use our website (http://www.centralvalleyclassic.com) to help promote your upcoming events as much as possible. I am already doing that for other events. Good quality racing in our district is good for all promoters, no matter what the race.

1A. I am also more than willing to help other events, if you want to hand out flyers at our registration tables, buy a promo spot for the announcer during the crit, offer free or discounted entries as primes, let us know.

2. Regarding marketing, we are actively working on this for 2007, more so than in years past. Any and all suggestions are welcome, and thanks for the input.

3. Regarding scheduling of multiple events per day:

In my opinion, to the race promoter there are 3 types of racers:

1) those that won't go to your event, no matter what;
2) those that have already decided to go to your event;
3) those that definitely will race, but are undecided about which event to go to.

It is this third group that we are primarily concerned with, in regards to multiple events on the same day. Within that third group of racers, there will be those that will favor convenience and location over anything else, especially if the two choices are far apart. Basically, if there's a closer race for them to attend, they will go there despite the fact that there may be better price lists, prestige, ambiance, course quality, NRC, whatever. If there is only one event on that date, some may still decide to stay home. Hey, that's fine. The rest will pack up the car and maybe the family, and head to the one race available on that date.

If the two competing events are close geographically, then the other factors come into play, such as deep prize lists, quality race courses, Dave Towle, good beer, etc.

So, I feel that the "policy" should be more geared towards having multiple events on the same date only if they are in close proximity to each other, especially if they are close to the largest pool of riders (Bay Area for example). Then let the promoters try to entice certain groups to come to their event, or split categories between them and everyone's happy. This takes the "convenience" factor completely out of the equation, and lets the two racing events compete with each other over more tangible things. This would also encourage the promoters to step up a bit and try to make their events better.

Regards
Jonathan Eropkin
Central Valley Classic
http://www.centralvalleyclassic.com

For any promoter hoping for near field limits for their entire day - use every available method to market your event. Robert Leibold, NCNCA Equip VP and editor/publisher of the NCNCA Newsletter for 20+ years (1984-2005) is going to be publishing and mailing this year's race calendar to every Northern California/Nevada rider who was issued a license in 2006. Is this a target audience or what?! Almost 4,000 racers will see your ad - where's the down side?

Tom Simpson

I think having so many races being put on that it becomes a problem is a good thing.

I also think promoters picking their dates out of spite for another race should be stopped. Do I need to name names?

As for which race to choose I see it like this.

There are racers who wish to race the best and they will travel to do so. Then there are those who race for fun and when they know the first group is out of town for a NRC race they will try to cherry pick the local race even if its not as good an event.

Thats just me and 20 years on the circuit speaking.

MS

Speaking for the Clydesdales, I have to express my disappointment that grade of any kind is being added to CVC. As long as that nice, absolutely flat circuit existed on the schedule, I could justify not losing those 20 pounds (of pure muscle) during the training season. Now what do I have to believe in?!?

Last year I embraced the rain, the hail, the wind, the cold, WITH A :lol: for the sake of glorious FLATITUDE! And I had my best finish ever.

People keep telling me that the world doesn't revolve around The Jesster, but couldn't just that one little flat slice of the Valley?!? Pleeeeeeeeezzz??

Jess "Looking4anewArace" Raphael

p.s. - I wouldn't miss CVC for anything! Beers at the finish line with my boys. Magic fingers bed at the "6." Best trophy of the year (or a lifetime).

JoeRacer wrote:How does Arizona and Texas get to set schedules in USCF rules?
Arizona - Has a Tier System so older racers get to choose dates first.
Texas - TXBRA - Has rule where races get first dibs on the weekend they ran the race last year.

In AZ and Texas they really can't prevent any promoter from putting on a race on which ever day they want. IN TX and AZ they could have some incentives to discourage promoters from holding an event on certain events. For example I'd guess that the TX Assoc.could keep a race out of their Texas Cup race series ( which is like our local BAR/BAT series) if the race promoter doesn't abide by their "scheduling rules". Since many promoters might see exclusion from the Texas Cup as the kiss of death this might be enough of a negative incentive to keep promoters in line with the local scheduling rules. Also I don't think AZ and TX are at the point where they have more races than weekend days available in their race season.

Personally I like the fact that we have more and more weekend days where riders have the choice between two or more races. In the same way that competition forces an athlete or a business to keep improving themselves competition between races on the same day will gradually force races to improve.

Matt,

it sounds like you have made some positive changes with the new RR course and letting everyone do the TT. I think you might want to consider making some changes to the Crit schedule to help you entice more riders to make the journey down to Fresno.

Personally I think you should think about cutting about two races from the Crit schedule you had this year and make most of the rest of the races longer. I think it is asking alot to have a 30 Min Cat 5 race with a $30 entry fee. That means a Cat 5 is paying $1 per minute of racing ( if the race even goes the full 30 minutes) and this is before travel costs. Add in that Cat 5s only had one possible race to do and this makes Tower a tough sell for Cat 5s. Normally I hate the idea of combining the 4s and 5s but maybe in this case combining those two categories for the sake of having a 45 or 50 minute race for that group would attract more riders overall.

While having a 35+ 3/4 race instead of a 35+ 4/5 race was an interesting idea I think you would have been better off with a 35+ 4/5 race so some of the Cat 5s could have done two races. The pool of Cat 5 riders who are 35+ is much larger than the pool of Cat 3s who are 35+.

Both of the master 35+ 1/2/3 and 45+ 1/2/3/4 had really small fields. Since the 35+ 1/2/3 field normally has a much larger field I wonder what kept the 35+ 1/2/3s away? I can feel the flames coming at me already but maybe drop the 45+ and use that time to extend other races ( like make the 35+ 1/2/3 race a Min of an hour same with the Cat 2s and Cat 3s and women Pro 1/2.

If you are going to run the Cat 3 and 4 women together again then I'd place the Cat 4 women separately for a separate prize list. This might help attract more Cat 4 women since they know they will get upgrade points based on placing against other cat 4s ( instead of having to place against Cat 3s for upgrade points).

Maybe all three of the Central Valley NRC races could get together and offer some kind of Central Valley Championship title/prizes for the non-elite categories ( only really works if all three NRC events have several of the same non-elite categories). This could be an omnium type thing that recognizes the best non-elite category riders for the 3 races. you could have individual and or team categories.

I think all races that involve longer travel times need to think about the additional things they can do ( like tweeking their schedules etc) that give riders the extra incentive to invest in the extra travel.

How does Arizona and Texas get to set schedules in USCF rules?
Arizona - Has a Tier System so older racers get to choose dates first.
Texas - TXBRA - Has rule where races get first dibs on the weekend they ran the race last year.

For some weekends it makes since to have two races if one race is always filling up if they are not in the same region of the Bay Area...
Some people will never race at a race that is more then 1 or 2 hours away because of life commitments so have a Metro Crit the same weekend as a Central Valley Stage Race really won't change numbers at it...

As the person who spoke for the CV Classic at the meeting last night, I want to clear couple of things up.

First, we are appreciative that Tom Simpson would consider and did move the McLaren Circuit race from the Sunday we are holding the Tower Crit.

Second, I did not think that the Monterey Circuit race was the cause of low rider turn out, as much as California was hit with the storm of the year, just happen to be on our weekend.

Mostly what I wanted to get across is that NRC status should hold a little more value to NCNCA and the board. Not only does raising money for the prize list take time, but our charity for the event Valley Children Hospital gets the short end of the stick when we share the weekend with another race. Our Club CVC usually puts in the seed money each year to cover the up front cost as we find sponsors for the event. This NRC race does not fund our club for the year.

As Casey pointed out, because of our location, it would be great to not compete with a event so close to the bulk of the riders. We know that we have no control over that, which is why our event has changed a little each year to offer a great value for your wind shield time.

This years high lights are a new a Road Race with good climbs in the foothills and an awesome 50+ mph decent. A flat TT, same as last year but now open to all Cat's. The infamous 180 degree turn crit course, which last year saw a finish so close (in the Pro's) that only the film could decide, thanks to Sport Base Online for running the camera. As always great deals on hotels, cash primes for the gas home, and prizes for the clubs who bring the most riders.

All this talk makes me wish we were closer to the race season!

Matt Britter

As was noted at the scheduling meeting a couple of time the NCNCA has very little control over the racing schedule. Under USCF rules a prospective promoter can't be denied a race permit unless the promoter has screwed up so badly in the past they are judged incompetent, the proposed race is to dangerous to be held, the promoter isn't following the rules like getting the proper permits from local agencies to hold the race or there aren't enough officials to work the proposed race. The main way the NCNCA can influence the racing schedule is by pointing out why a promoter might not want to put a race on a certain date and discuss other possible options. The bottom line is if 5 promoters all decide they want their races on the same day then there isn't much NCNCA can do to prevent this.

At the scheduling meeting the representatives of the Central Valley Classic were upset that another race wanted to happen on the same day as the Tower District Crit, the final race of the Central Valley Classic. The Central Valley Reps felt that their low rider turnout for this year's Tower Crit was due in part to the Monterey Circuit race happening on the same day. Eventually the promoter who wanted to hold the race on the same day as the Tower Crit decided to move to another date.

Personally I don't think that the Monterey Circuit race this year is what hurt the turn out at the Tower Crit. I think there are several other factors that probably hurt the Tower Crit turnout this year. The farther away a race is from the main body of racers the more people are going to factor in travel costs and time when deciding to do a race. In order for races that are farther away for most people to attract people they need to provide something special that will help attract riders to endure those extra travel costs and time. If there isn't enough to attract someone to travel 2+ hours to a race then they aren't going to that race even if there isn't a competing race.

Could you give the rest of us who did not attend the meeting some more context - what does this black sheep thing mean?