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

"Can ACA continue doing that

"Can ACA continue doing that while being a part of USAC?"

Yes, they absolutely can. And the whole argument of "they will lose $X per rider" is a straw man. All they have to do is become a local association. To recoup their cost of administration, they then charge a membership fee to all racers who want to belong to the LA for local series considerations (i.e. if you want to compete in BAR/BAT or be eligible for junior / women's mentoring and camp programs then you pay your $20 / whatever annual fee to ACA). Those who don't consider BAR/BAT important (elite racers / NRC guys, out of area racers) can just race under their USAC license as per usual; no hassles with one-day licensing or having to argue to get their upgrades / upgrade points / rankings considered.

This exact structure has been done well for decades in other regions of the country. TXBRA is an excellent example. And there were PLENTY of local associations (we used to call them district representatives in the 90s). The whole incident that touched this off happened back in 1995 or 1996. Our own "local association" in Ohio broke away for 2-3 years under a FIAC independent organization run out of southern Indiana.

Then the USAC realized their mistake, apologized, and worked to recreate the grassroots infrastructure.

What you are seeing in this region is an old, old grudge that goes back to Beth Wrenn-Estes day. She refused to accept change, and some of the old guard are still very loyal to that attitude. It's pure politics that doesn't serve the membership.

Now, I'll admit that most of the truly local racers don't really care about this stuff, they just want their BAR/BAT points and to have a crit in their backyard every weekend. But as someone who has been a regionally ranked racer and promoter in other regions of the country and who has seen how sponsors will step up to a legitimate national association, well; I think it can definitely be done better.

Until there is some sort of sea change with attitude regarding holding local pro/am events, the ACA will continue to be a small potatoes business that holds nothing more than local D/E class backyard races with very little prizelist that provides no true tangible benefit to riders wanting to progress above Cat 3.

There is a very valid reason why New Mexico dumped ACA and rejoined the USAC a few years ago. They want their riders to be able to compete both locally and on a national level. And their needs were not being served by ACA. I've talked to the promoters and local association director when I raced down there and they said they got treated like second class citizens. Sound familiar?

Very well put. Also as we

Very well put.

Also as we have so many new riders, who do not know much about the past, this is exactly how BRAC worked back when Colorado was part of USAC. BRAC (Bicycle Racing Association of Colorado) is what became the ACA (why is the ACA called the ACA when they only run races in Colorado? It makes no sense). You were a member of USAC and raced with that license, then if you wanted you joined BRAC to get the benefits mentioned like BAR/BAT.

There is zero reason this solution could not work now a days, except for the powers that be at the ACA not wanting it to happen. They would prefer to be the head of their own "federation", then be the LA for USAC.

It's interesting you

It's interesting you mentioned Beth, 'cause you've hit the nail on the head. Lots of the current ACA membership perhaps never met her, or have even heard of her, but the old timers know all about her. If there ever was a polarizing figure, it was Beth. You either loved her, or hated her. As for the current attitude about staying separate from USAC due to her influence, I'd say you're right on track with your assessment.

I recall participating in a discussion during an annual meeting back in the infancy of ACA, when Beth was the executive director and drunk with power. The board of directors never seemed to appreciate that she was supposed to work for them, as she ruled with an iron fist and none of the board would stand up to her. At this particular meeting, the issue of possibly modifying the BAR/BAT program came up. The proposal was to change from the 35/45/55... age-group breakdown to a 40/50/60... breakdown. Before there was any discussion at all, Beth said, "As long as I have anything to do with ACA, there will be no changes to BAR/BAT". Incredulously, rather than one of the board members reminding her she was the executive director and not czar, they sat silently and there was no discussion about the proposal at all. Everyone was scared to stand up to her.

At that point I came to the conclusion that ACA would never change, never grow, until she left. The sad thing is, she's gone but her influence has not.

I often wonder how things could've/would've been different if USAC would've just offered the regional director job to Yvonne, instead of setting off the sh.. storm that led to the formation of ACA by offering the job to someone else.

Pages