Why we don't drop rounds in the Verge NECCS

Submitted by adammyerson on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 10:48

Reprinting an excerpt from a recent e-mail exchange:

We've talked about dropping rounds many times in the past, and of course with the number of events this year it came up internally again. The reason we've decided against it is that we really want to reward participation, we don't want to penalize any particular round of the series, and we want to see local riders, or riders willing to base themselves in New England, winning the elite series.

From the elite standpoint, if we drop rounds, then we have people who only come in for Gloucester and Noho placing high up in the standings. We'd rather see a guy like Jamey Driscoll who supports the whole series win that prize. 

From a promoting standpoint, if we drop 2 rounds, it means no one will go to Vermont, Maine, or Rhode Island. Those are the rounds people will skip, and those are the rounds that really need the most support. In the past we've even given RI double points for that exact reason.

So, we realize that people won't be able to hit all 14 races, but we want to reward the people who do, financial incentive aside. I realize 14 races/7 weekends is a lot. I do not think it's sustainable in the long term. But in the old days, EVERY SINGLE RACE in New England was part of the Series. Every race. Every weekend. Imagine that. For now, if organizers want to step up and put in the effort and finances to be a UCI event, I want to include them in the Series.

It's a good problem to have.

Comments

Submitted by scott (not verified) on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 12:37.
Having lots of races to choose from in New England is a nice problem to have I suppose. I'm looking forward to 'cross as much as ever but I'm also looking forward to spreading my attendance and dollars to a variety of events and series. I didn't race cross in the days of every event being part of the Verge series but I also suspect in those days very few of the Verge events were UCI ranked and therefore had much lower operating and entry costs, no? As a non-elite, the addition of more Verge races has actually diminished the appeal of completing the entire Verge series. Verge points are not as coveted as a goal when they are awarded to as much as 1/3 of the field. I'll attend a lot of the races but will also skip those that conflict with closer, less expensive options. I don't care to drive long distances to watch 35 guys battling in a race that is going to pay out 25 deep using the entry fee I paid for the amateur event. I have no need for UCI points and will not be a contender for a series overall title. Instead I'll go where my friends and favorite competitors are going and that will often be to the non-Verge events. By the way, who are you referring to when you say "we want to reward the people who do" attend all of the races? Is there a reward (besides bragging rights) for any of the category leaders other than the elites?
Submitted by adammyerson on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 17:07.

Scott, it sounds like your approach is a perfectly reasonable one. A rider has to ask themselves, does a series matter, or should you choose your races on the value of each individual event? For some, chasing the series is a goal, for others, they'd rather focus on the best races based on distance, entry fee, course quality, prize list - whatever the standard is.

I think the key is just being OK with the fact that the Series isn't your goal here. I don't expect that to be possible for everyone, and I do think each race has to make their event worth attending on it's own merit, not just because it's in the Series.

As for the "reward," every category save the 3 beginner classes tracks points and awards a leader's jersey. Bragging rights are exactly what people are racing for in the amateur categories. On the road, MTB, or triathlon, how many people are racing for prize money? Very few. So if people are going to put the effort in to attend every round, they should be allowed to accumulate points toward the overall for doing so. If the Series overall is a rider's goal, then attending as many Series events as possible would naturally be part of the strategy.

For comparison, in the USA Crits Series, every rider gets 50 points just for starting! The winner gets only 200 points. You can see how heavily participation is rewarded in that case.

I don't care to drive long distances to watch 35 guys battling in a race that is going to pay out 25 deep using the entry fee I paid for the amateur event.

But you know, in Europe where the sport is fan-driven and not participant-driven, people will do just that, and pay $10 for the privilege. I'm not suggesting we have to copy everything from Europe, but the idea that pro sports are worth traveling to and paying for isn't an unreasonable one, and we have to start somewhere.

To sum up, again, I think your choice to focus on individual races and not the Series overall based on the number of events, distance from home, costs for competing, etc., are all legitimate. The Series is not going to fit every rider's goals and ambitions, and I do not think it should be expected to. They're just bike races anyway.

 

Submitted by gary! (not verified) on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 19:04.
as someone who doesn't really live in the 'real world' - without strong family attachments, without a strict scheduled job, without any other real commitments - I plan on attending all 7 Verge weekends and trying to fill the gaps with MAC races. hopefully I will be rewarded
Submitted by Scott (not verified) on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 21:06.
Thanks Adam. I think that is a well structured and eye opening response. I'd encourage you to share that view that the series is not trying to be (nor can it be) all things for all people to a wider audience. I guess a lot of us amateurs got used to a comfy 8-10 race schedule where points were hard to score and the competition was consistent. Now, with a larger schedule and more points available the need to make every event is less crucial but as you said, it is up to the individual promoters to make it appealing for us racers to choose their event. Is it September yet?
Submitted by Dan (not verified) on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 08:49.
We are dealing with the same dilemma here in GA, although on a smaller scale. A few of our in-town promoters and series honchos want to have the drop rounds but the out-of-town promoters know they will suffer if that happens. I believe drop rounds are just unfair, series points are for the most consistent rider, period. Double race weekends is going to water down the fields as riders pick and choose events, we are looking at possibly 18 events/9 weeks. This is asking too much of amateur racers. I suspect that promoters as well as the overall level of competition will suffer. Who wants to race in a field where last place gets on the podium?
Submitted by colinr (not verified) on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:32.
Double race weekends are a natural consequence of a growing cross scene. In New England, every single weekend from Sept 20th to Dec 7th has two races on it. Some have more. A *ton* of people race both days on the weekend. Some guys double up within the same day AND race both days (ok, just Dan Coady). Those people are doing over 30 cross races a year. I think you'll be surprised at how many people double up.
Submitted by RMM (not verified) on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:10.
With the addition of far flung events (ME) and the increase in race fees (prices rose 50% for cat 2's! in one year), I see myself (and some of my friends) seeking out local races when the option presents itself and staying home when the combination of increased race fees and travel expenses precludes going to Verge races. By dramatically increasing the number of races in the series while also increasing the entry fees (in the case of cat 2's, dramatically), you have virtually guaranteed that many racers will opt out of some of the Verge events. Which conflicts with the stated goal of the reprinted email No one will skip Gloucester or NoHo... ME will likely suffer most. VT is the first race in the series so its viewed as important. RI is closer to major population centers so travel isn't as much of an issue, but ME is in the middle of the series and located in the middle of nowhere. Dropped rounds or not, I think that the Verge Series has grown too big. One of the great things about New England cyclocross is the quirky and unique local races. Every non-Verge race has its own personality, while every Verge race is the same circus, different venue. 14 of these events just seems exhausting to me (not to mention to the promoters). Furthermore, while the money isn't great, most local races actually pay cash to top non elite racers, and at times it can be generous (though it looks as if Verge is paying out 3's in 2009). Most of us have no shot at the Verge Series overall even if we attend all events, which makes the local races even more appealing.
Submitted by adammyerson on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:26.

So, Mike, it sounds like you have a plan for the season that works for you. What's the problem?

Actually, I'll answer my own question. Here's the problem:

1. Maine is not a new series race. It's a returning Series race after a short hiatus. It's been a Series race, and a UCI race before. Further, it's not "far flung" if you live in Maine, or anywhere north of Boston. This is the NEW ENGLAND championship series, not the Massachusetts championships series. At one point, every state had a round in the series, and that was an original goal. This is a regional series, not a city or state based one. Maine won't "suffer." They'll get the turnout they get based on the same parameters of every race in the Series: course quality, drive time, place in the calendar, competing events, and Series importance. They know what to expect based on previous years of being in the Series.

2. If Maine is too far for you to go and you don't plan on doing every Series race anyway, why does it matter to you if it's part of the Series? You've decided to focus on individual races. If Maine's not in the Series, you're still not coming. If I cancel the Series, the races all still happen, and you still only go to the ones you like.

3. If you think every course in the Verge Series is the same, I'm just at a loss. There's no debating you there when you're that far afield. Heaven forbid we have 14 races that are all held to the same high standard of organization.

Here's the real issue. You're suffering from the FOMS. The Fear Of Missing Something. Since the Verge Series now has rounds beyond your personal desire and time/financial commitment level, you're choosing not to attend every round. And now if someone doesn't have the same concerns as you and does go to every round, they're going to be able to score points you won't and get an advantage over you in the Series standings. The Series is now beyond your reach, in your opinion, and that's burning you up. You want a Series that meets YOUR needs. But that's not necessarily what's best for the Series, or matches MY vision for the Series, or my goals.

What I see you complaining about here is not why the changes in the Series don't work, but why they don't work FOR YOU. There are 5 more great races, a more even start/category distribution, and an additional start slot. For most people, that's progress. Frankly, as a 3, I'd think you'd be raving about having your own class this year. If you lived in Maine, you'd also be psyched there was another weekend of big races you didn't have to drive 2-3 hours south for. I can tell you that the folks up there are pumped.

Around the country, people are envious of us that we have 14 UCI races within a 3-hour radius, filled in with local races every single weekend. The fact that we happen to organize those 14 races into a series is inconsequential. Go to the races that work for you, skip the ones that don't. You won't be alone. The Series will be a measure of who gets the best results over the span of all 14 races. It's really that simple, and it's ok for people to decide that's not their season goal.

If I can take this out to a national level as an example, I'm personally not focusing on the USGP or the NACT Series'. There are races in the Series I don't prefer, and there are conflicts with races I'd rather go to. I'll be in Maine, for instance, rather than Kentucky. But for the last two season, Jeremy Powers skipped Northampton, a race he can ride to from his house, to go to Boulder, because the USGP and NACT were his targets. We all just have to make the choices that work for us here, and not expect the races to tailor themselves to suit our individual situations.

Like JD Bilodeau has become fond of saying, there are no special snowflakes.

 

Submitted by RMM (not verified) on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:31.
Adam: I appreciate your taking the time to explain these decisions to us and for putting forth the effort to have conversations about these matters. In most matters that have to do with cycling and cyclocross I defer to you, as you have put in more time, effort, blood, sweat, money, thinking and passion than anyone I have ever met. And even if you hung it up today, you'd still always have my respect for what you have already done for the sport. I have no doubt that you are working to improve cyclocross for us here in New England. But in this case, I just don't agree with you. The series has become bloated and threatens to choke out smaller events in the area. Even if everyone makes money, if Verge effectively takes over New England cyclocross, it will change the character of New England cyclocross. I fear that these changes will make all races like Verge races. Currently the series leaves other promoters with very few weekends when they can successfully put on a race. Who wants to promote a race on the same weekend as a Verge race? The Accelerated Cure Series has to put on events in August in order to tip tow around the Verge schedule. Cambridge Bicycles is considering putting on a race, but we can't find a free weekend during the traditional cross season. Cambridge Christmas CycloCross? I am not saying that the Verge races aren't good. You misread me, or I miswrote; of course each Verge course is unique and each race has its own character. But geography, topography, course routing and local color are details; a Verge race is a Verge race. Obviously time will tell. As you have pointed out (and I have too) there are upsides to the current configuration of the series. Maybe after racing the 2009 series, I'll feel differently. If so, I'll come back and eat crow.
Submitted by adammyerson on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:45.

I appreciate that, Mike. And I appreciate the fact that you guys take the time to even voice your opinion. It means it actually matters to you, and that in turn means a lot to me.

Let me add this part of the long and short term vision for you: I also, personally, think 14 races in the Series are too many races. I think there's a natural inflation and deflation cycle here, and right now we're on an upswing. If that upswing continues and there's long-term growth, what I hope will happen is that we'll have so many UCI races that only the best ones will remain in the Series. Being a UCI event and being a Verge race should not always be tied to each other. I think a 6-race Series would be sufficient. And I would personally be happy to see UCI races every single weekend in New England, just like you see in Belgium. Just not Series races every weekend.

So I'm going to let the Series swell until it's about to burst, and until NE can support non-Series UCI events. At that point, I'm going to boil the Series down to just the best events. Ideally, that might be only C1 events, if some of the Series races can step it up to that level. We're just not there yet, so I'm willing to go with 14 races and see what happens.

I attempted to go that route once before. When I promoted the Central Mass Cyclo-Cross to End Homelessness in Worcester, I had a very big budget, and we were C1, the day before Gloucester. I specifically kept that race out of the Verge Series. It didn't need the Series, and the Series perhaps didn't need it. No one even noticed the difference, and half the people who showed up assumed it was a Series race!

I think the fact that a "Verge race is a Verge race" is actually a really good thing. It's an identifiable product, known for quality. That's the thing I've been aiming for since I took the Series over. People know what to expect when they come to a Series race, and they generally like what they get. If a Series race didn't meet that standard, UCI or not, I'd remove them from the Series.

And I don't want you to eat crow. I don't mind the input and feedback. I just want you guys to chill out and let things run their course.

(Sent from the Panera in Elk Grove, Illinois, about one hour before the start of my time trial, FYI.)

 

Submitted by colinr on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 17:28.
I am not sure what it takes to get into "the series," but I am not convinced that "the series" is threatening to choke out smaller events. A more accurate characterization would be "the growing number of promoters who are putting up the big bucks are threatening smaller promoters." Take for example the Maine races; last year they were non-Verge and got a paltry turnout. The promoter then decided that instead of running a lightly attended race (or dropping it entirely) he'd ante up,run a UCI race and pay into the Verge Series. Will that draw enough racers to break even/make him want to do it again next year? I dunno, but that's his problem. I'm going, but I've also got it marked on the calendar as "best chance for UCI points of the season." The people are threatened here are small promoters, who are afraid to compete with a Verge race, so each new Verge weekend forces the small promoters to fight each other. Ok, fine -- this is called "losing out to someone who wants it more." There's 7 race weekends that are putting up big dollar, big labor, big races -- if grassroots promoter joe can't match the effort, so be it. Why should his race (run at considerably less effort and less risk) be protected at the expense of promoters who are willing to go big? If you really want to run a cross race, make it better than the other options that weekend and people will show up. This might involve UCI sanctioning and five-figure budget, but if that's what you gotta do... And I say this as a guy who has been a small promoter. I want nothing to do with organizing a UCI race. Anyone who wants to do one on "my" weekend... awesome... you can do all the work and I'll come race it, that's a much better deal than promoting my own.
Submitted by adammyerson on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:51.

I should add, we have to get organizers to start backing up to the first weekend of September, and be willing to go after Nationals. There are still open dates in there. If we're worried about Green Mountain, then we're not really focused on folks who just want to race 'cross.

Perhaps a separate blog entry.

 

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:14.
Adam, I was just going to point out your last comment. I had planned and wanted to get back to racing this summer but for a multitude of reasons it didn't happen. I'm hoping to have a go this cross season and be back racing the full Verge series. That said I think you're absolutely right about the dates. As someone who is only focusing on cross I'd love earlier and later dates for races. That said I'm very excited that there are 14 races in the series this year. One thing that I know and have come to expect from these races is the level of quality. I know that everything will be run correctly, on time, and in a PROFESSIONAL manner. That's part of the value of the races. I'm willing to pay more to not have to worry about those stresses. Do I still plan on doing local races when I can, of course, but my focus is on the series.* *I say this without having a cross bike even built yet. I should probably get on that.