Dan, thanks again for taking part in all these discussions.

Last year, I was in a similar boat to you - I was promoting the Hellyer Friday Night Series under ATRA - cheaper costs, less paperwork, etc.

But, the bigger our races got - the more I wanted those racing results to be recognized by USACycling for a) upgrades and b) show the national organization just how diverse and growing our track circuit is.

We have the premier women's professional track team in the world based out of Hellyer. We have 3 of the last current US Scratch champions, as well as a slew of Junior and Masters title/record holders.

So, this year the Friday Night's were run under USACycling sanctioning. For track racing of the speeds and numbers of Friday Nights at Hellyer, we need 4 experienced, quality officials.

The NCNCA leadership can really do a lot to assist in getting the right officials to an event, and help keep a promtor's costs down and help train with the paperwork needs for USACycling sanctioning.

With USACycling sanctioning comes more liability coverage for all invovled. It really does help to have group coverage like USAC's.

Sorry gotta go to a meeting, more later. Thanks again, Dan - hope to talk to you more about the low-keys (and looking forward to talking to more regions about theirs, as well - i LOVE low-key, community-intro based events!)
Michael

ZebraMan wrote:If you don't want to do the work and put yourself on the line to answer these issues in the real world, or to take responsibility for making these decisions with your arse on the line, then at least show up at Early Birds and help mentor the next generation of men and women racers, or sign up to be one of the NCNCA mentors and give of your time and experience all season long. Prove it with WORK! I have.

Well, I've done that. But more commonly I've helped organize 7 seasons of Low-Key Hillclimbs (one year was without me) and we just let riders make up their own categories, so life's a lot simpler there, obviously. We keep entry fees optional and low, feed riders at the finish, almost always have complete results posted same day, and still manage to donate several thousand dollars to charity at the end of the series.

Off-topic: I'd love to do a USAC event, but it seems like as much work for one day as an entire season of Low-Keys, so I've not taken that plunge yet.

Casey, my idea is to have a one-day promoters' meeting, with lots of great content (or at least donuts) as incentive to participate. Then, we'll handcuff all the promoters to their chairs and force them to talk to each other!

In my little tiny poll about this, 85% of the promoters who answered the poll said they would be interested in a promoters' meeting:

http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1932

I've also set up a yahoogroup to facilitate promoter communication, so promoters, please sign up:

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/NCNCA-promoters/

I think many promoters have never thought about offering different categories. With many clubs, the race director is new each year and just chooses categories based on past years.

As far as negative feedback from racers, I think a lot of that can be prevented in the delivery of the message. If a promoter just cuts a field with a negative attitude (ie field XYZ had low participation last year so we won't have it this year), then of course they get a negative reaction. But if a promoter approaches changes with a positive attitude (ie we've listened to racers and are offering these alternative fields this year), then they wil likely be received with a positive response.

I'm thinking outside the box here, and maybe I'm a pollyanna, but I actually think we can enhance the 2010 racing calendar by fostering communication and creative thinking among race promoters.

Heck, look at the positive response we've gotten to Officer elections -- just by trying something a little different this year. If we don't try, we definitely won't get a different result than in the past. I'm all about trying.

Lorri

Not to throw cold water in some of the ideas expressed here but for the past few years when we have had two races scheduled on the same day I have given the promoters the contact Info for each other and encouraged them to work together to coordinate their schedules. Rarely have I ever heard of the promoters involved actually working together to minimize the overlapping categories they offer. IN some cases one promoter will not even respond when the other one tries to contact them.

One problem is that promoters seem to only be interested in running the " standard" categories and the " standard" schedule. Back when I started racing we had a much larger variety of races that were offered. I remember reading a race Ad for a long road race were it was one large open category race. Since everyone was racing for the same prizelist it was a handicap race with the beginning women and younger juniors getting the largest head start and the 1/2 elite men being the scratch group who had to chase everyone down in order to win.

I also remember a road race that had only one master race ( back when masters started at 40) and older masters were given a handicap of 1 minute per year over 40 they were. I also think some promoters are worried about the reaction if their race doesn't offer certain categories. An example might be the strong reaction expressed on these forums when Cat's Hill dropped the Cat 4 women in favor of a 45 race. I'm sure most promoters don't want to appear to not support some categories and there for they may offer those categories, even though another race on the same day ( or weekend) will be offering that category.

Maybe as they say in the investment game past performance will not be an indicator of future results. Maybe the new NCNCA board will have better results in getting promoters to cooperate on schedule coordination to reduce category overlap so that more categories can be run when two races happen on the same day.

Hello again.

As Ron Castia remarked, it's great to have so many good candidates running for positions. And I believe we're going to have a great turnout of clubs participating in this year's election - it's pretty amazing to think how geographically large and diverse our racing region really is.

Management of the racing schedule (the permitting process through officials being assigned) is the primary responsibility of the NCNCA President. The NCNCA President can outreach to promoters in our region, coordinating their specific event with other events in the region - planning them to maximize the attendance and safety for both events.

Ron has just mentioned that splitting his one-day event may not be possible due to probable restrictions from the municipality of the race. Though my example doesn't recommend splitting a one-day stand alone event like the InfoVista Criterium - that doesn't mean that Ron's suggestion wouldn't work for some other town's race - ESPECIALLY, if two clubs from the same region wanted to combine their efforts to create a new 2-day weekend.

As we can see, not all ideas will work for all races or regions - and it is the primary responsibility of the NCNCA President to outreach, solicit from and suggest to clubs the ideas that will improve their events - and that includes improvements possible through coordinated scheduling and permitting.

I have voiced strong support for Lorri Lee Llown as President of the NCNCA because I believe she has built the necessary relationships with the promoters and cycling communities throughout NorCal to effectively execute the responsibilties of the office.

I am running for Vice President because I am dedicated to developing riders in our region and believe that the VP's responsibilities with upgrading riders and special grants management are effective tools to continue doing so. I also believe that I will be able to assist in the recruiting and retainment of appointed vice president-volunteers for the NCNCA (please, please contact me, or any of the existing NCNCA BOD if you would like to become more involved with the NCNCA - please see: http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddk8twhq_29ct4dmhcx).

As an instructor, an official, a promoter, announcer, and advocate for cycling in NorCal - i'm committed to the continued growth of cycling in our region.

The original question on this forum topic was 'how to increase racing opportunities for women and juniors.'

I am committed to working with the NCNCA on scheduling improvements for 2010, with the goal of increasing racing opportunities for ALL riders. And again, I believe Lorri Lee Llown is the best choice for us in 2010 as President of the NCNCA.

Thanks for consideration,
Michael Hernandez
NCNCA VP Candidate

Mad Axeman wrote:
The reality and practicality of an idea cannot be measured by how articulate the idea was expressed.

Yes, that's often tru.

I don't think the race overlap issue needs to be all that complicated. Among other things, NCNCA can provide the email contacts for each race on the calendar soon after the scheduling meeting, and then actively encourage promoters to communicate with each other about the categories they would each like to include at their events.

If promoter A offers a certain field, and promoter B doesn't offer that field at their race the same, or following day promoter B should not be getting flak about it-rather support for not diluting the racing experience for the riders in that field. Maybe in the following year the promoters could swap certain fields with each other.

There is a lot of great information and points here. I think IMHO it is really great that we don't have any bad candidates. We really can't go wrong however this works out.

One thing I have always thought would be great is if the NCNCA could some how work to mediate race day overlaps and coordinate with the promoters to maximize race opportunities for the minority fields.

I know in the race I promote it is our goal to "spread the love" by alternating which minority fields we support each year.

As Jess mentioned, no matter what a promoter does, due to lack of sufficient time to have every category, a promoter is going to take heat from whom ever feels slighted that year.

The idea of having the same course on two days in order to cover more fields sounds really good on the surface. The truth is that the chances of getting approval from the cities or counties to block the same roads two days in a row are far and few between. I know it would not work at our Pleasanton course.

Any idea worth considering has to be looked at from more perspectives than just what sounds good to those who want to hear it.
What is the feasibility? What is the cost? Will it impose a higher risk of community backlash and ultimately result in loss of the event in the future?

The reality and practicality of an idea cannot be measured by how articulately the idea was expressed.

Cheers,
Ron

velogirl wrote:What support do you think the NCNCA can give to promoters to encourage inclusion of fields for juniors or women racers?[/i]

My sense is that women can already race most weekends of the year, and juniors aren't generally lacking (given the typically lower number of annual races they do). The main need seems to be communicating preferences about categories and events. NCNCA can help with that by increasing the communication among promoters during scheduling season. It could be as simple as a promoter's area on this site and a grid of all the dates during the year with categories offered. Plus some "market research" - NCNCA could easily survey women about race/category preferences, though that only works if people participate. I love Lorri's idea of a promoter's summit to swap notes.

So if I might hijack the question a bit...how could NCNCA help boost participation among juniors and women? Once the numbers are there promoters will respond. The two things that to me seem most productive are mentorship on the local/club level, and ability to do some racing in lower-key training races (especially, for juniors).

I don't know if this is going to be an NCNCA task. It's very local, it's having a ride where a few women or juniors new to the sport can hop in. I posted some ideas about the NCNCA website that could be helpful with this, but ultimately it gets down to whether people are out there riding to make it happen. CRC added a women's team some years ago and that small group has done some great racing...it doesn't take much to kick-start. But before that, it would be rare for women to join on a ride.

One "big idea" I've thought of relates to the role of clubs in cycling, and how NCNCA can encourage them. The stats suggest that most clubs are fairly small and come and go within a span of 3-4 years or so. This makes sense because they're usually organized by a small group of racers, around a few sponsors.

That's fine and many clubs work best that way. But for the sport, it makes things a little tough. My inspiration here is from rowing, where clubs/boathouses dating back to the 1800's have been the centers of the sport. It's by necessity (need to keep the boats somewhere) but something like that could figure into cycling in the US generally, and our district in particular. Some "magnet clubs" could become the drivers of things like regular mentored rides for juniors & women, as well as teams in those categories, and informal twilight races during the week.

These clubs are already there in some parts of the district, and it's a question of how/whether NCNCA can help them run better, and inspire a few more to work this way. There's an argument for financial support, because the money NCNCA gets from USAC is based on the number of licensed riders - bigger clubs are, in effect, paying more to NCNCA (via USAC).

I see that as a question on the table for NCNCA leadership, that goes beyond women/juniors: should the district have designated "magnet clubs" to help grow the sport? If so what are the criteria for being one, and what support should NCNCA give to these clubs? It's possible by creating the right "carrots" we'd see more group rides and mentorship, more juniors and women on the road...and ultimately, the best kind of inspiration for promoters to create events for them ("racers who will show up").

-Tad

Candidate for Treasurer

Good stuff Jess. Double Espresso this morning?

8)

More money is rarely the solution for poorly-attended events. We have already seen many, many events over the years with good prize lists but relatively few participants.

I remember one weekend last May(?) when there were three different W3 and W4 races, all three on good courses with decent prizes and relatively low participation at each race. The reason there was low participation? They were all on the same day! And the following day there were two more!

This "opportunity" for W3 and W4's to race five times in two days resulted in small fields and probably disappointed riders and promoters alike. Let's get this kind of problem corrected.

The NCNCA BOD can have some influence over race promoters, perhaps most directly at the scheduling meeting. Promoters should be strongly encouraged and enlightened to offer racing categories with no more overlap than is reasonable-to ensure a better outcome for the promoters and riders alike.

djconnel wrote:My interpretation of candidate positions is the desire to support undersubscribed fields is a key differentiating position between the two tickets. It was certainly a primary factor in my recommendations to my club in how the club vote be cast.

I support Michael's statements here. There's no need for every race date to support every category. Spread the joy: I love the fact the Menlo Grand Prix is a race of excellence for non-elite (note "elite" in the USAC context) women. Other races can focus on different populations.

Several interesting points here, DJ.

First: There are not "two tickets." I am running for Vice President because I believe I will best fill the role of Vice President. My candidacy does not in any way depend on who is elected President, or his/her qualifications or position.

It is easy to express a philosophical support for women and junior fields as some candidates have, or to bespeak a general support of financial aid for the promotion of those fields. If the NCNCA had an unlimited budget, I'm sure we'd all agree that subsidizing those fields is a righteous goal.

It is also far easier to demonstrate how a road race like Snelling can present better categorizations to achieve any particular goal. But try being responsible for remixing a crit day like Cherry Pie, the shortest racing day of the year, and then answer the tough questions from those who have felt slighted. I have.

Try creating a new criterium from nothing, with the entire investment and the potential losses coming exclusively from your own pocket, run to benefit a local charity, and see what the real necessities are for promoters when they choose which nine categories they must present to survive. I have.

If you don't want to do the work and put yourself on the line to answer these issues in the real world, or to take responsibility for making these decisions with your arse on the line, then at least show up at Early Birds and help mentor the next generation of men and women racers, or sign up to be one of the NCNCA mentors and give of your time and experience all season long. Prove it with WORK! I have.

We are not running for the Hellyer Board. And racing 100 times one season several years ago or talking on a microphone is not a qualification for leadership. I venture to say that with 250 races in the past 4 seasons and all the emcee'ing I've done, I know these to be my lesser attributes.

I have done the WORK. I have spoken what I believe to be the TRUTH. The questions I've asked on this Forum over the years have been tough ones, sometimes unpopular ones. I hope that frank talk and strong leadership qualities are what the region is seeking in its governors. This issue is another one of those times when we must be frank and pragmatic, not vague and wishful.

While I support the concept of expanded junior's and womens' inclusion in the sport, it is a decision for the promoters. If the NCNCA Board has a fund sufficient to subsidize the needs of promoters to aid these categories, that is wonderful (but unlikely) and I support it if we can afford it. But the realistic steps toward a solution lie primarily with the promoters. The Vice President and the VP-Road can encourage and facilitate communication between promoters prior to the finalization of race flyers to provide less conflict and more logic between categories. Active and creative leadership, combined with an experienced appreciation of promoters' needs, can help create opportunities.

But I have also in the past taken a lot of heat for my constructive suggestions to women racers to PRE-REGISTER! The perceived tendency of women racers to wait until the last minute or day-of to register creates a very unnecessary stress on promoters. I took a lot of flak from many sides, including my opponent, for speaking openly on the subject. The people who almost universally expressed support for my opinion were the promoters -- the ones who we most need to persuade to solve the juniors' and women's issues.

Effective leadership doesn't mean speaking only when the chorus will agree with you. Nor is it about being the most popular fellow. Nor is it about putting your arm around the most qualified running-mate.

It's about proving that you'll identify what needs to be done and then DO IT.

Jess "Zebraman" Raphael
VP Candidate

My interpretation of candidate positions is the desire to support undersubscribed fields is a key differentiating position between the two tickets. It was certainly a primary factor in my recommendations to my club in how the club vote be cast.

I support Michael's statements here. There's no need for every race date to support every category. Spread the joy: I love the fact the Menlo Grand Prix is a race of excellence for non-elite (note "elite" in the USAC context) women. Other races can focus on different populations.

VeloKate wrote:I don't mean to be picky, but it seems like Michael answered Tom's question and not Lorri Lee's. It seems like a good question (and heck if I know).

What can the NCNCA do to encourage/support promoters to provide racing opportunities for juniors and women?

Thanks for the follow-up and opportunity for me to answer and clarify. I went and saw "Where the Wild Things Are" ... and really want to unplug tonite - so, thanks for any responses and i'll get back to this forum later in the weekend.

Knowing that promoters want lots of racers and spectators to their events - my suggestion is that careful, knowledgable, and innovative scheduling of racing events in our region will increase racer and spectator turnout. Designing a racing schedule that works towards improved turnouts requires strong knowledge of racing venues, historical attendance, and new trends.

Lorri and I both work in introducing new athletes to cycling (it's her business, after all) and both promote good-sized regional racing events. We have a deep network to keep us up to date with new trends in NorCal cycling. And, we both have racing history in NorCal (I had over 100 race starts in a season a couple years back and have been racing NorCal Nevada dirt and road for a long time) - so, we know venues and have first-hand data of attendance histories.

The President of the NCNCA's central duties are managing the racing calender, referee scheduling, and race permit approval. Over the past few years, we have seen increased numbers of races on the calendar. What a great workload to have to manage as president!

I believe that Lorri Lee Llown and I could help facilitate increased opportunities for all riders to race safely and competitively in NorCal/Nev through our working with each promoter to schedule events with better targeted and coordinated categories between their fellow promoters in the region.

Aside from scheduling, the original question asks specifically what can be done to persuade promoters to increase racing opportunities for juniors and women ... and, my response is to for us to INCREASE the number of juniors and women racing in our region - as we have been doing. More racers mean more racing opportunities offered from promoters is what i've seen happening in NorCal for this past decade.

{Can i request testimonials from any women readers who have been racers in NorCal from say ... early '90s thru 'till today ... sharing stories of race categories offered in the past?}

Our junior ranks on the velodrome are impressive and keep growing. For the final Friday Night @ Hellyer, San Jose Bicycle Club put the pedal down for raising money for their Juniors Team in 2010 ... and I think Rosa Farinha said it might have been $3k raised. that's rad. We raised money for folks and organizations this year through all the Friday Night's @ Hellyer - and maybe some of those involved can share their experiences, too.

Aside from raising support from the community (monetary and resources), we also can continue to grow the recruitment and education system that bring in new and train new riders. There are many models through the various clubs and mentoring events throughout NorCal. From the Early Bird Women's Development Team to Brockie's Saturday Intro Track addicts to the dirty kids in the NorCal HS League - we've got a vibrant, sustained pipeline to support all levels of riders in cycling. Though, I would like prefer we support U-25 riders a bit more.

Thanks for considering.
Michael Hernandez

I am all in favor the NCNCA helping to get more juniors & women racing. I would support a program to subsidize races as an incentive to offer more fields for juniors & women.

As a racer who focuses on 35+ 1/2/3 races, I am fortunate to have no shortage of racing opportunities. I really don't mind when some events don't offer the 35+ option and I have to race elite. Spring Hill is one example where the promoter eliminated the 35+ 1/2/3 field, but was able to add a 2nd Jr field, and I think that's great.

Thanks,

Chris Phipps
candidate for 2010 NCNCA Treasurer

Currently as I understand there is a program to subsidize races that offer Junior field but are not a part of the Junior Point Series.

This is a great start and that model/program could grow for Juniors and Women if the budget allows.

Thanks,
Ron Castia

I don't mean to be picky, but it seems like Michael answered Tom's question and not Lorri Lee's. It seems like a good question (and heck if I know).

What can the NCNCA do to encourage/support promoters to provide racing opportunities for juniors and women?

Hi Tom, hope the Pilarcitos Series is even better this year. I look forward to the Twilight event - i LOVE racing under the lights. Thanks for that.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you about focusing on cat4 women getting a separate racing day. I see no reason to not switch multiple categories for race weekends.

Why not have 2 days of criterium racing in Merced one weekend, then 2 days of road racing the next - with each day splitting the categories, and overlapping those the promoters think would yield the best double-day attendance (profiting local businesses).

For example, a road race that has traditionally been cat 4 women strong in turnout (Snelling, San Ardo, etc) could have 2 days to spread out the registrations and give women a chance to even race twice in one weekend (or whatever category will yield the promoters' desired outcomes).

To give you a specific recommendation, there were 13 start waves for the 2009 Snelling Road Race. The promoter could do something like, instead of having a crit and road race on Sat/Sun, the promoter could instead have 2 weekends of 2 crits and 2 road races on separate weekends (or coordinate and split the workload with another club/promoter).

Snelling could look like:

Sat:
Men p1/2
Women p/1/2
Men 3
Women 3
Men 4
Men 5
Women 4
35+ 1/2/3
45+ 1/2/3

9 waves - making 1) a shorter day for officials, thus reducing costs; 2) decreasing chances of fields overlapping - impacting safety, race dynamics, and enjoyment; 3) decreasing parking issues & porto-costs by spreading attendance over 2 days

Sun road races
Men P1/2
Women P1/2 (must promote the Elite ranks ... we need our riders to develop into the next Lance and Kirsten Armstongs!)
35+ 4
35+ 5
45+3/4
Women 4
Women 35+ 1,2,3
Junior 14 & under
Junior 15 & over

9 waves - grouping probable a) family units who would double day; b) still give new riders [jrs and entry level men and women) a chance to see and interact with the "pro's". Good mentoring opportunities, and good business sense.

We can go for bigger and better with criteriums in some towns - especially if we want to involve downtown merchants who materially benefit from races: microbrews, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, porto-machine rentals, local merchant signage, chambers of commerce, etc.

Arguing for municipality involvement, support, and permission is based on the measurable outcomes of bike racers staying in host towns, using host merchants, and having a great time doing it.

Thanks for considering my recommendations and for spreading word to other promoters so we can get more dialogue on the possibilities of coordinating weekends around the region.

Regards,
Michael Hernandez
candidate for 2010 NCNCA Vice President
thanks for voting!

ps -- happy birthday!

thanks for the thoughts, Tom. I hope you'll participate in our promoters' retreat this fall/winter (date tba) and share your enthusiasm for non-traditional schedulling + promoter communication/cooperation.

I view your suggestions as one solution, but my question was a bit different.

What can the NCNCA do to encourage/support promoters to provide racing opportunities for juniors and women?

Lorri, maybe a slightly different question could be added to the mix to solicit suggestions - does every category need to be represented every saturday AND sunday?

Could Cat 4 Women racers be better served if they had 1 day per weekend that offered them an event? Possibly this could result in better attendance with better field sizes and better competition? Organizers could focus their attention on a successful field (and many determine success by field size/attendance). Organizers could easily look at their limited time and resources and decide to make a space on their calendar ONLY for categories that show up in adequate numbers to cover their expenses. Small fields, big bills to pay - something usually gives and #1 target are those fields of modest size.

Regarding Juniors especially, the singular best example of Junior racer development in all of California, the most successful in terms of racer attendance, only schedules 5 events per season. Juniors are still kids, adolescents - this program attracts 350-400 Juniors at their races. Is this a better model to pattern for NorCal kids? Check the NorCal High School MTB League for a record of Junior athlete recruiting, development and competition that is 2nd to none. (girls have separate freshmen, sophmore, JV and Varsity heats - 100 Girls altogether at races!)

Do we necessarily need more events for Juniors than currently exist on the calendar? Are more events going to develop more racers? I don;t know.

Would Cat 4 Women be better served by races if there was just a single event per weekend - again, better attendance with potentially better racing. Criteriums are not as appealing to many Cat 4 Women racers - their attendance has been pretty modest at most of them but Road Races! They sell out in record time and overflow fields get scheduled.

How about:

2 Junior events per month Feb - July (12 races total)
1 Women's Cat 4 event per weekend (30 races Feb-August)

as a starting point in the discussion

Tom Simpson
Pilarcitos Cyclesports