Start order for Cross Nats Determined by Revamped Rider Ranking

This was passed on to us by one of our readers. This was taken from the USA Cycling website:

Start order for Cross Nats Determined by Revamped Rider Ranking

Call-ups for non-UCI catetories at Cyclo-cross Nationals will be determined by rider ranking in USA Cycling's re-vamped Results and Ranking System, increasing the importance of results submission for local race directors. Start order for all non-UCI categories at the 2012 USA Cycling Cyclo-cross National Championships will be determined by rider ranking using the organization’s new, improved rankings system to debut Sept.1.

Cyclo-cross will be the first USA Cycling National Championship to use the remodeled rankings system to resolve call-up order for all race divisions other than Collegiate, Junior 17-18 and Elite. Following member feedback, this method of seeding aims to offer the most equitable and concise call-up procedure possible and does signify a departure from the previous approach of utilizing time trials, random drawings or based on when a rider registered online for Cyclo-cross National Championships.

USA Cycling’s new rankings system is set for public launch September 1, 2011. The rankings system will use an innovative algorithm to rank riders based on their results compared to other competitors rather than using an arbitrary event value. The new system will allow riders to achieve a ranking, based more on how well they race rather than how often. Rider rankings will be derived from an individual’s average of his/her top three results within a rolling 12 month period. More details on the revamped rankings program will be released in the coming weeks prior to the debut of the new system.

To ensure as fair and accurate a process as possible, USA Cycling is requesting all cyclo-cross race directors to submit results to USA Cycling in an accurate and timely fashion.

Basic instructions for submitting race results are available on the Race Directors page of usacycling.org.

Posted by Andrea Smith - Jun 30, 2011
For more information contact: asmith@usacycling.org

Does this eliminate an ACA rider from being competitive at cyclocross nationals? Where does this leave ACA riders?

News Item: 

58 Comments

Not from Missouri

But I wish someone could show me why it is, that whatever the conditions were that led to the split between USAC and ACA (BRAC at the time), the split can't be resolved. I just don't see why ACA can't be the official 'local association' for CO and just go back to sanctioning things under USAC.

Can anyone from ACA who follows this forum please enlighten us?

Not from Missouri answer

The reason the split has been unresolved has to do with money. USAC wants ACA to become the Local Association for Colorado but the amount of money ACA would get to run the Co LOC would not even come close to what ACA is able to generate and put back into local racing with our current system.

After the split occured and ACA were ignored by USAC, ACA became very self reliant and successful on it's own. Now there is less incentive than ever to rejoin unless USAC offers a more equitable revenue split for ACA. USAC, instead of trying to compete with ACA by offering better racing opportunities, they are getting heavy handed and using WalMart tactics to shut ACA down. Personally I am becoming more and more disenchanted with USAC as this thing gets uglier and uglier.

USAC should bargain in good faith to bring ACA back to USAC not the strongarm way they are going about it.

Bargaining

Can USAC "bargain" when all the other local associations have the exact same contract??? Seems pretty unfair to do and I doubt USAC would compromise their integrity with the rest of the country just to suck up to CO or OR. I hope ACA wouldn't do something similar to get some large club on board with their organization.

Ok, so...

I understand that local associations get a certain amount of money back from licenses sold within the state, but what other monies are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that the things ACA does to raise money (e.g. Cherry Creek TT) wouldn't still be run, and since we all know that these events will continue, are you suggesting that the proceeds of events such as that would be siphoned off to USAC?

When I said "show me", I wasn't looking for generalizations, I'm looking for specifics. Aside from the $$$ that come back to the association from licensing revenues, or the per day per rider fees that promoters pay to the sanctioning body (whether ACA or USAC), how specifically would anything change?

USAC did not ignore the ACA.

USAC did not ignore the ACA. In fact their people, including top people have met with ACA reps over the years to try to get it worked out. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but they have been talking to the ACA for years. Anyone who was around when Beth was still here knows there was no way it was going to happen as long as she was part of the ACA.

This maybe hard for people like you to understand, but USAC offers a standard revenue split to all Local Associations Across the US. So they are in no position to offer a better deal, or bargin with CO. Colorado is not a huge state to USAC. If they gave us some deal, they are going to have to go back to other large states like CA, and cut them a deal too. That is not going to happen.

I know most people on here were not around when we were part of USAC and BRAC was our local association, but for the sake of reality do you know how it worked? You had to get a USAC license to race, and then if you wanted to be part of BRAC you had to join them too and pay a fee. So you could race with just the USAC license, but if you wanted the news letter, info on races, access to the race kit, and to be part of BAR/BAT you had to join BRAC.

So here is a wild idea for all ACA lovers, lets go back to USAC so those of us who really race (and thus have USAC license too) only need 1 license. Then have the ACA be the local association and do it the way BRAC did it, if you want all that BRAC offers then charge you say $20 to be a member. Really easy solution, then all the riders only need one license, we can race else where on that license, people from out of state can race here, pros can race here, our cross races count for nationals, we get much better insurance, we might get an NRC race here again (all you new guys probably do not know Bannock and Niwot were NRC races before we left USAC, heck I think Horner won Niwot that year) and the ACA would get a split of the USAC license fee and the $20 to join them.

What is wrong with this idea?

$60 for a senior/master USAC

$60 for a senior/master USAC license, of which not more than $10 comes back to the local association. $20 to be a local association member, so $20 + $10 = $30. Current senior/master ACA license is $45. So how would ACA continue to be financially solvent on $15 less per rider, even if all USAC license holders became local association members? Not to mention all the permit fees that would go to USAC? NONE of those come back to the local association. ACA would have to make it ridiculously expensive NOT to be a local association member.

"...what ACA is able to

"...what ACA is able to generate and put back into local racing...."

So I race 60+ times a year, here in CO (USAC and ACA) and in 23 other states, mostly at the NRC level but some regional level events and I have to ask you, what does the ACA do for us? What is it doing that other associations aren't already able to do other than line the pockets of friends of the ACA? And please don't tell me that the USAC doesn't offer better racing opportunities now in CO. How about the N. Boulder crit, how about the Aspen Crit, how about FCCF? Please if someone could please shows me the ACA is doing more to A.)get young people, the future of our sport involved B.) puts on better races or C.) Attract and makes racing for the highest caliber or racer available to the local scene then I will tell you lets keep the ACA and make her stronger. However from what I can see the ACA gets and F- on getting young riders involved, C+ for better races but that comes more from opportunity rather than quality and F- on Attracting riders because purchasing a second lic. is a high barrier to entry for out of state riders and now can't even allow Pros to race.

DOWN WITH THE ACA, I am sorry you are no longer and advantage but a hindrance please leave!

F- on juniors???

Stating the ACA gets an F- for junior development this clearly indicates how out of touch you are with the organization you are bashing. ACA has 2-3 Junior Camps per year, A Juniors ride for free program, a 1st Bike program, A juniors only Stage race, and a part-time junior development coordinator to help local teams with junior development. While I think it may be time for a change, I really can't agree with your statements.

Pages