Would this crazy idea save pro road cycling?

[rain dogs]

Imagine:

ELiminate Trade Teams

[weisan]

Please elaborate

[LouDeeter]

I'm trying to figure out why it needs saving. Seems to be more popular than ever.

[David Tollefson]

So you're suggesting that it goes back to national teams, funded by whatever national governing body each country can muster? And that's going to "save" pro road cycling?

[FlashUNC]

Tried it a couple times. Doesn't work. Wouldn't save anything.

[Lewis Moon]

Hate to say it but I'm kinda from the nihilist "let it die" camp.

[rain dogs]

Please elaborate

1. This is how road cycling began.
2. Every race and result matters to every rider competing all the time.
3. Riders are numbered, jersey'd (color), by 'world/seed' ranking like tennis
4. Personal sponsorship
5. All neutral support
6. Less one-dimensionally talented riders
7. Less team cars on the road
8. More individual freedom to the riders
etc. etc.

This came from the question: Why do we have trade teams? Athletes have personal sponsors all the time and the sponsor system is a mess that only works for a few teams at a time. And from a little reflecting on the UCI "how do we 'save' cycling and make it more interesting/modern/exciting" survey

Katusha is folding. Dimension Data is in trouble. I'm just saying.... try to imagine cycling without trade teams, and exercise in imagination, would it be more boring? would their be more doping? would 90% of all the stages be 'piano' until the last 20km? would it be more/less predictable? would riders have to be master tacticians vs listen to a radio? would riders actually compete to win more races vs 1 or 2 targets a year?

[nooneline]

the UCI is going to start trying this with track racing, and nobody thinks it's a good idea.

[MattTuck]

Interesting idea, but I think it would make the racing a little less exciting to watch. And, the teams serve an important logistical purpose that you'd then offload to 150+ individual riders.

Even entry level amateur races have teams, because there are huge benefits to having a team.

If you want to save cycling, the best thing to do is probably get more young people on bikes, so they have a connection to the sport as they age.

[rain dogs]

Interesting idea, but I think 1. it would make the racing a little less exciting to watch. And, 2. the teams serve an important logistical purpose that you'd then offload to 150+ individual riders.

1. Really, why?

2. I'm of the opinion that the event (like the TDF) should be taking this on and that the only reason trade teams exist is so the TdF and the like can offload all this onto teams and then not share any of the buckets of money they make.

[Mzilliox]

hammer chases instead of time trials

does road cycling need saving?

[FlashUNC]

1. This is how road cycling began.
2. Every race and result matters to every rider competing all the time.
3. Riders are numbered, jersey'd (color), by 'world/seed' ranking like tennis
4. Personal sponsorship
5. All neutral support
6. Less one-dimensionally talented riders
7. Less team cars on the road
8. More individual freedom to the riders
etc. etc.

This came from the question: Why do we have trade teams? Athletes have personal sponsors all the time and the sponsor system is a mess that only works for a few teams at a time. And from a little reflecting on the UCI "how do we 'save' cycling and make it more interesting/modern/exciting" survey

Katusha is folding. Dimension Data is in trouble. I'm just saying.... try to imagine cycling without trade teams, and exercise in imagination, would it be more boring? would their be more doping? would 90% of all the stages be 'piano' until the last 20km? would it be more/less predictable? would riders have to be master tacticians vs listen to a radio? would riders actually compete to win more races vs 1 or 2 targets a year?

Need look no further than the in-fighting of the 1970's Belgian teams at Worlds (or the perpetual Spanish and Italian team in-fighting we seem to see every year) or the national teams at the Giro and the Tour during the late 40s and 50s to see what kind of disaster it would be.

The real solution is right in your answer -- getting ASO and the other orgs to share a bigger piece of the revenue pie. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[HugoBear]

Road cycling is really declining.
I talked to a friend who runs a stage race and participation is declining significantly.

[rain dogs]

Need look no further than the in-fighting of the 1970's Belgian teams at Worlds (or the perpetual Spanish and Italian team in-fighting we seem to see every year) or the national teams at the Giro and the Tour during the late 40s and 50s to see what kind of disaster it would be.

The real solution is right in your answer -- getting ASO and the other orgs to share a bigger piece of the revenue pie. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

But those were national teams. I'm talking NO teams. No trade teams. No national teams. Individual racers. A real riders union. Paid Invitational racing. Every rider for themselves. Like Boxing on Bikes (yes, very different, but in that fighters make money for stepping in the ring even if it's over in 30 seconds) or... like non-scripted year-end criteriums. Riders are paid to attend, and paid more when they win.

Did no one do the UCI survey? the UCI seems to think cycling needs a major overhaul!

[FlashUNC]

But those were national teams. I'm talking NO teams. No trade teams. No national teams. Individual racers. A real riders union. Paid Invitational racing. Every rider for themselves. Like Boxing on Bikes (yes, very different, but in that fighters make money for stepping in the ring even if it's over in 30 seconds) or... like non-scripted year-end criteriums. Riders are paid to attend, and paid more when they win.

Did no one do the UCI survey? the UCI seems to think cycling needs a major overhaul!

Ah, apologies I misunderstood.

Yeah, that's an even worse idea.

The time gaps would be enormous, as evidenced by the first 30 years of the Tour's existence. Racing may be even more negative than it is today. In this era, who wants to see someone win by a half hour over a bunch of disorganized rivals?

Tough to make an argument that this will be beneficial to the sport's health, and use boxing as an the prime example. If the sport wants to aspire to boxing levels of function, then might as well pack up and go home.

[Mark McM]

I, for one, would miss the beauty of a perfectly executing sprint lead-out train.

Eliminating all teams would result in far more under-the-table deal making. Not just on the road, but before the race as well. When riders with the same jersey are working together, at least you can understand why they are. Without organized teams, there will always be suspicions about deals behind closed doors when riders work together.

[dbnm]

remove two way radios. race by instinct and skill.

[Ozz]

remove two way radios. race by instinct and skill.

+1

If you can think clearly and strategize when up to your eyeballs in lactic acid and in oxygen debt....you deserve to win.

[unterhausen]

yes, the radios are a big part of the problem. Seems like the times when they banned them the racing was better.

[MattTuck]

1. Really, why?

2. I'm of the opinion that the event (like the TDF) should be taking this on and that the only reason trade teams exist is so the TdF and the like can offload all this onto teams and then not share any of the buckets of money they make.

For stage racing, I think it would neutralize huge portions of the race. Breakaways would be fewer, because every rider that was not in it would be at risk of losing out to it, so you'd have a lots of surges in the race, followed by sections in which no one would have any interest in pulling.

In fact, without the support riders, I am not sure you'd find much interest in any riders for pulling at the front. This would change on the hills, and you'd probably have exciting racing in the mountains, but again, riders would have to be conservative because they wouldn't want to wind up in a position where they were alone too far from the finish, and have to pedal alone for a long time.

Flat stages would be a waiting game, as no one would want to burn themselves out until the finale.

For one day races, there may not be a huge difference from what you see a dynamic like you see in gravel racing or paris-roubaix. A series of selections that would continually thin the peloton through attrition. Probably more 'hard-man' style racing, but we've seen a bunch of cases in the past where one rider gets away and the others in the group cannot create an alliance to pull back the attacker. Debatable whether a solo attacker vs. a dysfunctional group of chasers really makes for compelling racing. But I'd say the last 100k of Roubaix is generally exciting, and (for the most part) it is individuals riding at or near the limit. So, I understand the impulse to try to recreate that writ large.

[MattTuck]

I, for one, would miss the beauty of a perfectly executing sprint lead-out train.

Eliminating all teams would result in far more under-the-table deal making. Not just on the road, but before the race as well. When riders with the same jersey are working together, at least you can understand why they are. Without organized teams, there will always be suspicions about deals behind closed doors when riders work together.

And, races could advantage or disadvantage certain riders in both subtle and not so subtle ways.

[prototoast]

Road cycling is really declining.
I talked to a friend who runs a stage race and participation is declining significantly.

Are we talking about world tour road racing, domestic pro road racing, or amateur road racing? The issues with each seem very different to me.

[72gmc]

Eliminate race radios and drug testing. More drama! Less trauma!

[David Tollefson]

How exciting is the local Cat 4 racing scene? See many breakaways? When team tactics are taken out of the picture, every one chases everything, and it'll always come down to a (*****show of a) final sprint.

[FlashUNC]

How exciting is the local Cat 4 racing scene? See many breakaways? When team tactics are taken out of the picture, every one chases everything, and it'll always come down to a (*****show of a) final sprint.

It's like NASCAR, you watch for the crashes. The winner is somewhat immaterial.

[saab2000]

Alliances would form. If you had 200 riders in the field there would still be a natural selection. How would the top 200 be selected for a given race?

I'm of the mindset that there's nothing wrong with it and if there is, let it die. I actually won't lose any sleep over it.

[rain dogs]

For one day races, there may not be a huge difference from what you see a dynamic like you see in gravel racing or paris-roubaix. A series of selections that would continually thin the peloton through attrition. Probably more 'hard-man' style racing, but we've seen a bunch of cases in the past where one rider gets away and the others in the group cannot create an alliance to pull back the attacker. Debatable whether a solo attacker vs. a dysfunctional group of chasers really makes for compelling racing. But I'd say the last 100k of Roubaix is generally exciting, and (for the most part) it is individuals riding at or near the limit. So, I understand the impulse to try to recreate that writ large.

I understand it's far from a perfect idea.... and in fact impossible... and could potentially be a disaster, BUT, this is how I think it would evolve ^^^

The classics/Worlds are the best example of racing by attrition. BUt once they know it's over, they bail/stop chasing because there is no incentive to continue.... they've lost. But with stage racing, you'd quickly see alliances form by the riders needing to chase or protecting a position. These are the best of the best, and big egos, they want to attack. It's with teams that there is no incentive to attack because the one will be chased down by the opposing team and be blown in the end.

Look at Landa the other day - went on the attack, Ineos didn't respond more than up the pace a tiny bit.... pulled him back and he lost time. All the comments were how stupid he was for attacking. If that's the case, a guy is stupid for attacking, then cycling needs saving IMHO. And hey, this so far is a great Tour, with awesome team drama today so don;t get me wrong. I'm just spitballing what it would look like without teams, but in the modern age.

Here's a question, do people think the current team(s) and structure actually makes for competitive racing throughout the 180-200 riders?

To me, it looks like 4 or 5 who have a chance and 175 also rans. Since the 1990 Tour, how many different teams (excluding sponsor changes) have won? 7? With 22 going to 3 teams/mergers/DS... and really kinda 24. It's less talent that wins tours than it is money

1. Banesto-CdE-Movistar x6? (Unzue)
2. Ineos/Sky x6? (Brailsford)
3. USPS-Discovery-Astana x 3 -7 (Bruyneel/Godefroot/Vino)
4. CSC-Saxo-Leopard-Trek x 2 (Riis)
5. Telekom - HTC Highroad x 2 (Godefroot....mostly)
6. BMC x 1 (Ochowicz)
7. Mercatone Uno x 1 (Pezzi)

[mt2u77]

I, for one, would miss the beauty of a perfectly executing sprint lead-out train.

Eliminating all teams would result in far more under-the-table deal making. Not just on the road, but before the race as well. When riders with the same jersey are working together, at least you can understand why they are. Without organized teams, there will always be suspicions about deals behind closed doors when riders work together.


Was going to post the same thing. Given the advantages of working together, this would just move something under the table that used to be above the table. Say you're a middling pro trying to scrape by, or maybe your body isn't suited for a given race-- you basically know you're not winning. You can try your luck at the dregs of the purse, or take a guaranteed payout from a contender or sports bettor to do some work. Hmm?

[FlashUNC]

Was going to post the same thing. Given the advantages of working together, this would just move something under the table that used to be above the table. Say you're a middling pro trying to scrape by, or maybe your body isn't suited for a given race-- you basically know you're not winning. You can try your luck at the dregs of the purse, or take a guaranteed payout from a contender or sports bettor to do some work. Hmm?

You mean the 2012 Olympic Men's Road Race?

[David Tollefson]

It's like NASCAR, you watch for the crashes. The winner is somewhat immaterial.

Cynical, and awesome.

[Ronsonic]

For its first few decades mountain bike racing worked like that, no support during the race from team mates or staff, every man for himself, etc.

UCI changed those rules.

[pbarry]

But those were national teams. I'm talking NO teams. No trade teams. No national teams. Individual racers. A real riders union. Paid Invitational racing. Every rider for themselves. Like Boxing on Bikes (yes, very different, but in that fighters make money for stepping in the ring even if it's over in 30 seconds) or... like non-scripted year-end criteriums. Riders are paid to attend, and paid more when they win.

Did no one do the UCI survey? the UCI seems to think cycling needs a major overhaul!

This may have been posted already.. But, isn’t what you are suggesting called a triathlon?

[pbarry]

Alliances would form. If you had 200 riders in the field there would still be a natural selection. How would the top 200 be selected for a given race?

I'm of the mindset that there's nothing wrong with it and if there is, let it die. I actually won't lose any sleep over it.

Like.

[adub]

Funny how something that isn't overly popular in the USofA so it must be dying! LOL!!

[54ny77]

I'd like to see more curling events intertwined with cycling, particularly in the winter months. Sagan would make an excellent curler.

[sitzmark]

This may have been posted already.. But, isn’t what you are suggesting called a triathlon?

Yup. The platform exists - just need to add ride-only versions to the event mix.

[simonov]

Yup. The platform exists - just need to add ride-only versions to the event mix.

Triathlon likely succeeds because it follows the same model as most running events, in that the pros race in the same event (different category) as age groupers and first timers. Thousands of people pay big money for the ability to participate in the event. Promoters can usually make some money even after covering all the infrastructure costs. The pros are part of the draw and the event gives them a place to race and represent their sponsors. It's nicely symbiotic. Adding to this is the fact that most "triathletes" need the races to identify as such. A triathlete who doesn't race is just a fitness junkie who likes to swim, bike and run. Cyclists on the other hand mostly identify as such without needing to be bike racers, so there's inherently less appeal in the events than triathlons. Bike racing is also more dangerous with mass starts, pack riding, etc. and that keeps many people away, which brings me to...

Gran Fondos are very popular, are roughly what you describe as bike only tris only with fewer (or almost no) pros, and bring in enough money to offer good prizes and a good event. I just don't see that concept extending to the top tiers of pro racing for a handful of reasons.

I also don't think the sport is dying, though I do think something needs to be done about the instability of trade team sponsorships.

[sitzmark]

The topic at hand isn’t that the sport is dying, but that PRO cycling is “dying”. There’s pretty clear evidence that the options for raising $20-$40 million to fund a world tour team are drying up. Cyclists can fondo all they want but it isn’t a way to earn a living.

With some event revenue sharing there could be a few pro who earn a decent (maybe even very lucrative) living and a whole lot of starving wanna bees... less than what the pittance some of the no-names make today.

There is no sport more expensive to broadcast than tour road cycling. No gate revenues to share. World viewership limited. Lots of ways to organize and operate competitive cycling events. How to do that so professional level athletes can earn a living and “professional-level income” is what is in in jeopardy.

Look to triathlon to see how brand/team-free racing will benefit the top-tier athletes financially. May not dramatically change the number of people who participate in cycling related competition, but will dramatically change “PRO” cycling.

[oldpotatoe]

save pro road cycling?

Didn't know it needed to be 'saved'...maybe in the US, but it's been a fringe of the fringe pro sport for decades.
Hate to say it but I'm kinda from the nihilist "let it die" camp.

For it to 'die' it's gotta be really sick..watch the 3 GT, and the TV coverage in Europe for just about every bike race, big and small. If it wasn't popular(Advert$$), it wouldnt be everywhere during the 'season'.
Road cycling is really declining.
I talked to a friend who runs a stage race and participation is declining significantly.


In the US? Not surprised...again, cycling in the US is seen as using a toy.
Funny how something that isn't overly popular in the USofA so it must be dying! LOL!!


See above..:)

[BdaGhisallo]

The topic at hand isn’t that the sport is dying, but that PRO cycling is “dying”. There’s pretty clear evidence that the options for raising $20-$40 million to fund a world tour team are drying up.


There does seem to be a sufficient number of sponsors that wish to pay $10-20 million to sponsor a World Tour team, though.

[peanutgallery]

No team radios and no power meters during events. Banish Brailsford to that scientific settlement in Antarctica each July

You'll see an actual race, again

[dancinkozmo]

I'd like to see more curling events intertwined with cycling, particularly in the winter months.

me too , but would the UCI approve 25mm or 32mm curling irons ?

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/C2OIpfkXuX1tCmt6S2Xg1Wc2F_Q=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/103462956-56aa18633df78cf772ac60a8.jpg

[rain dogs]

The topic at hand isn’t that the sport is dying, but that PRO cycling is “dying”. There’s pretty clear evidence that the options for raising $20-$40 million to fund a world tour team are drying up. ...

Look to triathlon to see how brand/team-free racing will benefit the top-tier athletes financially. May not dramatically change the number of people who participate in cycling related competition, but will dramatically change “PRO” cycling.

Yeah, this is how I was thinking about this.Why aren't teams paid to attend races by the ASO for example? So why not all the time as a financial model? Why not? Because they can (not pay) ! that's why!

We've seen riders get paid to attend races - Armstrong 1,5million for TdU, Froome/sky paid 1,4 million to attend the Giro. Certain riders already get appearance fees, and certain riders already have personal contracts (Van Der Poel + Canyon), Contador + Specialized...

So, then I was thinking that maybe the team is the root of all the problems. Maybe it causes more problems than it solves. Anyway, yeah, triathlon, early mountain biking, 'amateur' events. There are loads of bike races without teams and in-race team car support. Cyclocross is, for all intents and purposes 'individual'

Again, was just spitballing, as Nippo-Vini Fantini just announced today that they are going to fold for financial reasons. Joining Katusha and the others...

I think one-way radios (for saftey/service), less vehicles and less drafting of vehicles, and revenue sharing would be good real world reforms to start and as much I put on the UCI survey.

[sitzmark]

A revenue share model would probably have a positive impact. Pro sports is all about $$$. Period end. Outside of billionaires and royal families, people/businesses sponsor sports for return on investment reasons. To justify spending $20 million to sponsor a team (or marketing spend in general) you need to make a case for $200 million plus in added sales revenues (or protecting the same in existing sales) to break even at typical profit margins.

The lower tier of sponsors are frustrated because the majority of wins and visibility goes to the teams with the biggest budgets. So the marketing impact of their “spending” is reduced. As those who are accountable only to themselves for the money they spend grow bored with pro cycling and pull out, it creates major issues. On the other hand if dominant teams like Sky bring many more viewers the impact of sponsorship has greater potential. That’s why big names get paid to show up. No easy answers.

A revenue share plan like other pro sports where there are spending caps and league revenue sharing might be a solution to the boom and bust cycles of individual team sponsorship. That’d be a sea change mentality for pro cycling.

[simonov]

The topic at hand isn’t that the sport is dying, but that PRO cycling is “dying”. There’s pretty clear evidence that the options for raising $20-$40 million to fund a world tour team are drying up. Cyclists can fondo all they want but it isn’t a way to earn a living.

With some event revenue sharing there could be a few pro who earn a decent (maybe even very lucrative) living and a whole lot of starving wanna bees... less than what the pittance some of the no-names make today.

There is no sport more expensive to broadcast than tour road cycling. No gate revenues to share. World viewership limited. Lots of ways to organize and operate competitive cycling events. How to do that so professional level athletes can earn a living and “professional-level income” is what is in in jeopardy.

Look to triathlon to see how brand/team-free racing will benefit the top-tier athletes financially. May not dramatically change the number of people who participate in cycling related competition, but will dramatically change “PRO” cycling.

I think you nail some important points. The cost of broadcasting and the inability to sell tickets makes it very hard to run a profitable "league." I just think the pack racing aspects of bike racing vs. the no draft rules of tri really create different dynamics. But, hey, maybe it works. Triathlon seems to be booming as a business.

[djdj]

me too , but would the UCI approve 25mm or 32mm curling irons ?

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/C2OIpfkXuX1tCmt6S2Xg1Wc2F_Q=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/103462956-56aa18633df78cf772ac60a8.jpg

Neither -- it's mechanical doping.