"Conditions for Reintegration" with USAC meeting Nov 18th

Is Colorado getting closer to having a combined USAC/ACA association? This Friday your ACA club is encouraged to attend a special meeting with the CEO of USAC, Steve Johnson. Attached is the Full Agenda for the Meeting and below is a snippet of it

6:00 Welcome, Introductions, and Roll Call of Club Presidents

6:30 Presentation Steve Johnson, President & CEO of USACycling

6:45 Presentation Bill Barr, President, ACA Board of Directors
Clint Bickmore, Vice President, ACA Board of Directors
Chris McGee, Executive Director, ACA

7:00 Statement of Conditions for Reintegration

1- For the first three years in which the ACA serves as a Local Association of USAC, the USA Cycling
Development Foundation’s Center of Excellence of Award will provide $20,000 per year to the ACA for the
ACA’s Junior Development Program.

2- As per the LA Agreement, USAC will rebate the ACA $10 for each full price license sold in the ACA’s LA
area (Section 2.2) during the Term of this agreement. As all ACA license members who join USAC as a result
of the ACA becoming the Local Association are in excess to the 2011 licenses sold, the ACA is due an
additional $5 for each license sold during the 2012 Term of this agreement (Section 2.3).

3- The Local Association can set local policy regarding race points points series, upgrades, various LA fees,
including but not limited to: calendar fees, surcharges, race kit fees, officials’ fees and race day duties,
calendar date request fees, required EMT on site for all races, and the continuation of existing programs and
continuation of existing staff.

4- The ACA will work with USAC personnel on providing transaction process flow from the USAC license web
application to include ACA local association process flow. Additionally, the ACA will provide USAC web
personnel local association information to include with license purchase confirmation.

News Item: 


The only real major change is

The only real major change is the cost. Riders will have to pay more, clubs will pay more, and race promoters will pay more. All for the same service. The ACA seems to do a great job and will continue to do the same job I'm sure. So the major change is that Pro's can now come to races. I'm sorry to say, but as history shows to get the pro's the cash purses will have to be big, and then the club/promoter will have to pay USAC a portion of that prize purse. The race won't make any money if they are offering up big prize purses to get these pro's, and will eventually go away as soon as sponsorship dries up. Having pro's at a race doesn't really boost amateur participation numbers (again historically) so a club won't make more revenue by just having pro's race. I think the associations have their place in sport, but I also think that they can get greedy and operate on poor outdated business models. I think USAC and the ACA need to revamp how they do business in general so that the sport can grow without the clubs, promoters, and racers getting to foot the bill all the time. Why aren't these associations non-profits anyhow or are they? I couldn't find that on their websites. Sorry for the comparison between USAC/ACA and USA Triathlon, but their published membership #'s speak for themselves. Why does USA Triathlon have over twice as many annual members and participants for a relatively new sport and not charge race directors all these fees? Why do clubs/promoters have to pay for insurance on every participant when those participants are annual members? Shouldn't annual licenses cover the riders insurance costs? It does for USAT. Why not just charge for the non-members like USAT does? Maybe USAC should look to create more of a USAT business model and bring themselves into the 21st century. Charge clubs/promoters a flat fee of $250 to sanction a race. That would cover all insurance costs, calendar placement, and all the same things you get when you sanction a race with USAC/ACA now. Then the club/promoter would have to pay for the officials just like they do with USAT. One day racer license fees would go to USAC or the local association, and there wouldn't be any charge for those annual licensed riders. Since cyclists race more it would be an incentive to drive more annual licenses. The club/promoter would have to buy their own bib numbers, but they'll have to anyhow under USAC. The cost of putting on races would be lower and you'd get the same service. Enough of the power struggle between the ACA and USAC. Just because USAC seems to be hellbent on forcing all the independent associations to come under their umbrella thus boosting their profitability and prestige doesn't mean the cycling world will be better for this change. Why is USAC making these moves now? Is it because no one races USAC races in their home state? I'm sure that's pretty embarrassing, but do they have to use cheap blocking tactics to force independent associations to come under their umbrella? Why not just have a platform where the independent associations would actually want to join and remain financially viable. Personally I hope OBRA stays independent as they seem to "get it". I further hope that if this merger does happen that USAC will take a portion of their new profits and send a staff member to business school to revamp their entire model as it's archaic and nonsensical. Unless of course you're just out to squeeze the athlete, club, and promoters to boost the bottom line. If the vote is to rejoin USAC at least they'll get to wipe the egg off their faces since people will be racing USAC sanctioned races again in their home state. That is if the clubs/promoters can afford to keep putting on races, and the athletes continue to purchase the annual licenses at the higher costs. The recession isn't over USAC, it's time to bring your business into the current economy.

and as for cross who's to say

and as for cross who's to say the key promoters don't get pissed and join OBRA. Boulder Racing, DBC, Blue Sky, and Frisco should look into and see if OBRA would accept them as a back-up. It might be cheaper for everyone and the racers still get the top races in Colorado.

Other Options than USAC

Utah Cross has gone independent the last few years and have grown their numbers. - http://www.utcx.net/ - no license needed.
"UTCX is proud to be one of the most affordable Cyclocross series in the country. We do not require any expensive annual or 1 day licenses."

California Cross Series - Through ABR - http://www.ambikerace.com - /2011/calendar_11.htm - $25 license, $5 One-Day License fee...

I know a good insurance company in Boulder. :-) Once you get insurance, you can get permits for races.

dumb it down for me?

Can someone dumb this down for me? As an "average" cat 4 racer, what am I looking at?

Higher yearly fee to be a part of my current team, since I'm sure they won't want to eat the increased costs?
Higher race entry fees?
Higher yearly membership dues (replace ACA w/USAC/BRAC)?

And the benefit is what again?

I would think that it has to

I would think that it has to do with promoters being able to lure a larger/better pro field and in turn put on a better event. without that, our events will continue to degrade over time. there is a big difference between a race put on by a local club and one put on by a dedicated promoter. look at all of the biggest, most fun, well put on races of the year. the vast majority are put on by real promoters. not clubs. it seems like a big hassle for a promoter to have to dual sanction a race just to allow pros to race. I don't know the specifics, but there must be overhead involved with that.

I ran my first half marathon this year and was dumbfounded by how well executed other races are. There was free food, beer tent, a band, aid stations, etc. It really put things in perspective. Granted, every race can't be that way, but we have nothing that comes close.

So I guess if you would rather have a bunch of dull crits, with no spectators, beer tent, things for friends/family to do at the race, then, yeah, there's no benefit.

with regard to scoring beyond

with regard to scoring beyond 10/15 place, that is exactly the problem. Most pros can't race because they are not allowed to race ACA and pro racers are chasing UCI points. Which is why there is such a huge turnout for Boulder Cup and USGP Ft. Collins.

You will care about racing at 9 and pros racing in the afternoon when promoters get sick of losing money and start dropping races on the calendar.

You are very shortsighted. I am by no means a "pro" but I can at least understand the issues promoters are facing.


you think the 30-50 pros who get the bulk of the prize $'s are going to cause promoters to lose money? The bulk of the racers are not professionals and they are the ones who contribute more $'s than those who are. Maybe you're correct but I don't follow your logic.