Collegiate Cycling - TT aero rule changes
Hello all
Below is an important message I sent to the members of the USA Cycling Collegiate Cycling board of trustees. I also sent this to other coaches and leaders associated with collegiate cycling. If you are a collegiate cyclist now, have aspirations of becoming a collegiate cyclist or are a parent of a Junior rider you will want to weigh in on this issue. You may disagree with me, that's ok, but it is important that everyone's voice is heard.
There has been a rule change for 2010 that will ban aero bars, TT bikes, disc wheels and helmets at the collegiate level. The rule will force collegiate riders to race their regular road bikes for the ITT and TTT disciplines. The TTT is a highly coveted jersey within the collegiate road national championship. The TTT would not go away of course, but these rule changes will greatly impact the future of collegiate cycling.
Please read my message below:
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the new rule changes to be implemented for collegiate cycling in 2010. I have copied others on this email for the sake of efficiency, and because I personally know most of the people listed or know they are passionate about collegiate cycling. I also know that most of you are familiar with one another on some level. Therefore, please take this with the respect I am intending, and know that I am only speaking on behalf of my university.
I am the full-time cycling coach at Cumberland University in Lebanon, TN. We compete in both mountain and road, but our main strength is as a road racing program. The TTT discipline is one we spend a lot of time and energy trying to become our best. While we are well funded to kit out, feed, travel and compete in full schedules each semester, we are not funded to provide or invest in bicycles or most other equipment pieces. I do have some team TT helmets and team disc wheels I use specifically for my Men A team. Aside from that my kids are all responsible for buying what they need to compete through our shop sponsor.
In my professional opinion the new rules affecting the elimination of all aero equipment are bad and do not help to strengthen collegiate cycling and its legitimacy. The growth at this level has been tremendous in the last 5 years with an even more promising future, but these new rules are troubling. Below I have listed my primary concerns and points of objection.
1 - This rule is directly opposed to USAC's stated goal and mission of winning Olympic medals. The rule change will negatively affect rider development and hamper a rider’s opportunity to get stronger in the TT discipline. Collegiate cycling is now one of the most promising avenues to identify talent for the national team, but this rule will stamp out that opportunity. For riders identified through the Junior program who have the possibility of joining the national team, if they attend college how does this rule help them or USAC achieve their goals? More and more collegiate riders are being signed by domestic professional teams with more racing with our national team. Brent Bookwalter, Mara Abbott and Tom Danielson are just a few good examples of former collegiate riders racing at Worlds for Team USA.
2 - This rule contradicts 3 out of the 4 stated goals and mission of collegiate cycling. The rule is not welcoming, it does not foster development, and robs talented time trial riders the opportunity of leadership challenges and learning experiences. All team camaraderie, team building and individual disciplined character traits are enhanced through the use of advanced racing equipment. Simply put, having the right equipment pushes every to become their very best, and I know as a coach that without it there will be missed opportunities to teach.
3 - All bars are armrests, and as such all riders will now get into the aero position without armrest support. This means riders will now have less control of their bicycles, and they will have difficulty in applying the brakes as necessary. This is especially dangerous in a TTT, and it could be argued in court this is now a liability issue because USAC won't allow the most logical of safety measures; brakes, as it does elsewhere. This is a leap for sure. However, if it can thought of, it can be argued, with the potential of a jury agreeing. USAC has always focused a lot of attention on safety, rightly so, but this rule change will put riders at risk.
4 – I feel the rules discussion was not out in the open and light of day as has been projected by USA Cycling. More could have been done to solicit feedback from coaches and team leaders from across the country. Were all 15 varsity funded collegiate programs contacted for their thoughts? I know I was not contacted, and we have been on the map for about 5 years now. While this topic may have been discussed at nationals it does not provide those unable to attend nationals to have their voices heard either. Moreover, for those of us at nationals our main priority is attending to our kids, and this means the only other meeting we have time to fit in our schedules is the team/riders meeting each night. Sometimes we are not even able to attend those.
5 - This rule isolates collegiate cycling away from all of the rest of the cycling world. With this logic, why not implement it at the Junior level as well? Of course taking aero equipment away from Juniors is a ridiculous idea, and if so then it's just as ridiculous for collegiate riders. Many developing Juniors are using collegiate cycling as a platform to reach the next level nationally or internationally, so it would make sense that collegiate cycling would want to promote that growth, not hinder it.
6 - If costs are such a big concern then USAC should do more to subsidize or offset the costs for collegiate riders. TT equipment is a small percentage when compared to the total cost structure of travel, hotels, food, entry fees, etc. on a weekly basis to compete within a conference schedule. Moreover, as stated above, my kids are buying their own equipment already because they are committed to racing non-collegiate USAC events.
7 - Having a TT bike as a separate piece of equipment gives riders flexibility and confidence in knowing it's a dedicated piece of equipment. In other words, if they suffer a crash to their road bikes and damage it beyond raceability then they still have their TT bike to compete on.
8 – Collegiate cycling already has difficulty in getting kids to commit to racing the collegiate season on top of the non-collegiate opportunities. All these kids are going to attend college anyway, somewhere, whether or not they have a program to join. For those schools with a club or varsity team it will be more difficult to convince a good rider to join because they will have these limitations in competition. This was a concern already, and it will be an even bigger obstacle with this new rule.
9 - At least USAC did not use the "competitive balance" argument (or so I’m led to believe), as the strong men/women of TT will still be winning TTTs. With that thought in mind, those athletes who are strong in the TT have and will continue to invest in equipment to compete in what they are good at in non-collegiate events. This means a lot of valuable equipment will go unused competitively for five months every year. This is terrible for development, and may encourage a rider to avoid collegiate. In the long run it may mean that riders will not invest in equipment because it cannot be used in collegiate, thereby robbing USAC and coaches the opportunity to identify talented riders. In the end it can hamper USAC's ability to win gold medals.
10 – In the end my customers are my athletes, and your customers are your licensed members. All of us should listen to them more and do our best to put a smile on their face. This decision does not put a smile on any of our customer’s faces. I will be encouraging collegiate licensed riders to speak up to have their voices heard, regardless of where they stand on the issue. If USAC desires to have their finger on the pulse of collegiate cycling, then have its members vote on the issue.
In my view, this rule sets collegiate cycling back 15 to 20 years. If it remains then it will certainly negatively impact the sport in areas we can currently see, but more damaging will be unintended consequences we cannot see. The collateral damage will leave everyone saddened and a lesser athlete developed because of it. I’m sure there are even more concerns I am unaware of as I sit from my perspective.
I sincerely appreciate your time and dedication to our sport. None of us would be involved if we did not have a passion for it, and guys like me would not respond at length if we did not care. I hope you will reconsider this rule and reverse your decision for 2010 and beyond.
Respectfully
Tim Hall
Cycling Coach
Cumberland University
thall@cumberland.edu
615-310-3745
Below is an important message I sent to the members of the USA Cycling Collegiate Cycling board of trustees. I also sent this to other coaches and leaders associated with collegiate cycling. If you are a collegiate cyclist now, have aspirations of becoming a collegiate cyclist or are a parent of a Junior rider you will want to weigh in on this issue. You may disagree with me, that's ok, but it is important that everyone's voice is heard.
There has been a rule change for 2010 that will ban aero bars, TT bikes, disc wheels and helmets at the collegiate level. The rule will force collegiate riders to race their regular road bikes for the ITT and TTT disciplines. The TTT is a highly coveted jersey within the collegiate road national championship. The TTT would not go away of course, but these rule changes will greatly impact the future of collegiate cycling.
Please read my message below:
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the new rule changes to be implemented for collegiate cycling in 2010. I have copied others on this email for the sake of efficiency, and because I personally know most of the people listed or know they are passionate about collegiate cycling. I also know that most of you are familiar with one another on some level. Therefore, please take this with the respect I am intending, and know that I am only speaking on behalf of my university.
I am the full-time cycling coach at Cumberland University in Lebanon, TN. We compete in both mountain and road, but our main strength is as a road racing program. The TTT discipline is one we spend a lot of time and energy trying to become our best. While we are well funded to kit out, feed, travel and compete in full schedules each semester, we are not funded to provide or invest in bicycles or most other equipment pieces. I do have some team TT helmets and team disc wheels I use specifically for my Men A team. Aside from that my kids are all responsible for buying what they need to compete through our shop sponsor.
In my professional opinion the new rules affecting the elimination of all aero equipment are bad and do not help to strengthen collegiate cycling and its legitimacy. The growth at this level has been tremendous in the last 5 years with an even more promising future, but these new rules are troubling. Below I have listed my primary concerns and points of objection.
1 - This rule is directly opposed to USAC's stated goal and mission of winning Olympic medals. The rule change will negatively affect rider development and hamper a rider’s opportunity to get stronger in the TT discipline. Collegiate cycling is now one of the most promising avenues to identify talent for the national team, but this rule will stamp out that opportunity. For riders identified through the Junior program who have the possibility of joining the national team, if they attend college how does this rule help them or USAC achieve their goals? More and more collegiate riders are being signed by domestic professional teams with more racing with our national team. Brent Bookwalter, Mara Abbott and Tom Danielson are just a few good examples of former collegiate riders racing at Worlds for Team USA.
2 - This rule contradicts 3 out of the 4 stated goals and mission of collegiate cycling. The rule is not welcoming, it does not foster development, and robs talented time trial riders the opportunity of leadership challenges and learning experiences. All team camaraderie, team building and individual disciplined character traits are enhanced through the use of advanced racing equipment. Simply put, having the right equipment pushes every to become their very best, and I know as a coach that without it there will be missed opportunities to teach.
3 - All bars are armrests, and as such all riders will now get into the aero position without armrest support. This means riders will now have less control of their bicycles, and they will have difficulty in applying the brakes as necessary. This is especially dangerous in a TTT, and it could be argued in court this is now a liability issue because USAC won't allow the most logical of safety measures; brakes, as it does elsewhere. This is a leap for sure. However, if it can thought of, it can be argued, with the potential of a jury agreeing. USAC has always focused a lot of attention on safety, rightly so, but this rule change will put riders at risk.
4 – I feel the rules discussion was not out in the open and light of day as has been projected by USA Cycling. More could have been done to solicit feedback from coaches and team leaders from across the country. Were all 15 varsity funded collegiate programs contacted for their thoughts? I know I was not contacted, and we have been on the map for about 5 years now. While this topic may have been discussed at nationals it does not provide those unable to attend nationals to have their voices heard either. Moreover, for those of us at nationals our main priority is attending to our kids, and this means the only other meeting we have time to fit in our schedules is the team/riders meeting each night. Sometimes we are not even able to attend those.
5 - This rule isolates collegiate cycling away from all of the rest of the cycling world. With this logic, why not implement it at the Junior level as well? Of course taking aero equipment away from Juniors is a ridiculous idea, and if so then it's just as ridiculous for collegiate riders. Many developing Juniors are using collegiate cycling as a platform to reach the next level nationally or internationally, so it would make sense that collegiate cycling would want to promote that growth, not hinder it.
6 - If costs are such a big concern then USAC should do more to subsidize or offset the costs for collegiate riders. TT equipment is a small percentage when compared to the total cost structure of travel, hotels, food, entry fees, etc. on a weekly basis to compete within a conference schedule. Moreover, as stated above, my kids are buying their own equipment already because they are committed to racing non-collegiate USAC events.
7 - Having a TT bike as a separate piece of equipment gives riders flexibility and confidence in knowing it's a dedicated piece of equipment. In other words, if they suffer a crash to their road bikes and damage it beyond raceability then they still have their TT bike to compete on.
8 – Collegiate cycling already has difficulty in getting kids to commit to racing the collegiate season on top of the non-collegiate opportunities. All these kids are going to attend college anyway, somewhere, whether or not they have a program to join. For those schools with a club or varsity team it will be more difficult to convince a good rider to join because they will have these limitations in competition. This was a concern already, and it will be an even bigger obstacle with this new rule.
9 - At least USAC did not use the "competitive balance" argument (or so I’m led to believe), as the strong men/women of TT will still be winning TTTs. With that thought in mind, those athletes who are strong in the TT have and will continue to invest in equipment to compete in what they are good at in non-collegiate events. This means a lot of valuable equipment will go unused competitively for five months every year. This is terrible for development, and may encourage a rider to avoid collegiate. In the long run it may mean that riders will not invest in equipment because it cannot be used in collegiate, thereby robbing USAC and coaches the opportunity to identify talented riders. In the end it can hamper USAC's ability to win gold medals.
10 – In the end my customers are my athletes, and your customers are your licensed members. All of us should listen to them more and do our best to put a smile on their face. This decision does not put a smile on any of our customer’s faces. I will be encouraging collegiate licensed riders to speak up to have their voices heard, regardless of where they stand on the issue. If USAC desires to have their finger on the pulse of collegiate cycling, then have its members vote on the issue.
In my view, this rule sets collegiate cycling back 15 to 20 years. If it remains then it will certainly negatively impact the sport in areas we can currently see, but more damaging will be unintended consequences we cannot see. The collateral damage will leave everyone saddened and a lesser athlete developed because of it. I’m sure there are even more concerns I am unaware of as I sit from my perspective.
I sincerely appreciate your time and dedication to our sport. None of us would be involved if we did not have a passion for it, and guys like me would not respond at length if we did not care. I hope you will reconsider this rule and reverse your decision for 2010 and beyond.
Respectfully
Tim Hall
Cycling Coach
Cumberland University
thall@cumberland.edu
615-310-3745
posted by NashvilleCyclist.com at 11/05/2009 08:05:00 PM
18 Comments:
I completely agree with your stance on this. Why not also make a mandatory road bike weight limit of 20 lbs.? If it is the "competitive advantage" argument they are using while also taking cost into consideration, and I am guessing it is, then why not apply it to road racing as well, why only TT's? Obviously, that would be ridiculous. Once again, USA Cycling swings and misses.
I agree completely. Very well said.
The one thing I'll give ground on is the brake issue on # 3, but there's still a safety issue involved.
Also, the more I think about this the more I am trying to figure out why does USA Cycling even have a dog in this hunt? Moreover, why are they only concerned with costs to collegiate cycling?
I'll even add another two points.
# 11 - this rule will more negatively affect "A" level riders, not so much the B/C/D level riders. Though at nationals a rider does not have to be an A rider to compete in the TTT. Those racing at the lower levels during the regular season typically do not possess the equipment to begin with, but as they develop their ability and upgrade they also upgrade their equipment.
# 12 - How does the bike industry feel about this decision? The growing collegiate market of aero equipment just got snuffed out 100%. I wonder if any companies are aware this rule even exists, and when they do will they lean on USAC to open their eyes a little? I would expect some intense lobbying to take place from bike manufacturers, wheel companies, etc. What a shame to be going backwards technologically, where else does this happen?
Sigh to #12...
You shouldn't have to buy a level playing field in college athletics.
I am sure the manufacturers will be upset, but that just tells you that you're forsaken consumerism for sport - a good thing.
The consumerism comment is a very unfair thing to interject. Our equipment for this sport is part of the tools we go to work with, it's our passion, our hobby, our "thing" we're interested in. Why should anyone place limits on someone's consumerism if they have the means to do it? Are we going to cap varsity spending too?
At the end of the day, how is an athlete going to level the "playing field" of talent? I've said it before, if an athlete is good at something they'll do whatever it takes to excel at it, and part of it is investing in the right equipment. If they aren't so good then they'll go after an area where they are good or go find something else to do. Wow, what a concept, not reaching the top or get near it if you aren't really good at it to begin with (or willing to work your butt off getting there).
Regarding point #2; can you describe a specific example of how the new rule would rob a talented rider of opportunity for challenges and experience?
I am at a loss to construct a scenario where a talented rider ends up failing in the sport, because and only because the subset of cyclists racing in collegiate road TT events were all using standard road equipment.
On Point #2 - Talented riders will ride outside of the collegiate season, and will have ample opportunities to work with aero gear. Not to mention the fact that a TTT is not a mass start event,so people can just go out and ride TT bikes. Lastly, camaraderie has nothing to do with equipment, just the people involved.
On point #3 I will admit, that you're right about just aero bars for the sake of safety are legitimate, but they have to draw the line somewhere right?
On point #4, this topic was discussed at great length at the ECCC meeting in November 2008, over 40 (of over 60) teams were in attendance and we made a recommendation to the collegiate board. The recommendation: BAN IT. Sorry, but that's more than double the 15 varsity squads in the country found in just 1 conference. Frankly, this is America and majority rules.
Frankly, I appreciate your opinions, but they are very shortsighted.
I could go on and on about my points and counter yours, but I'll leave you with this since the weakest debate point one can ever make is "majority rules":
The riders who got their butts kicked with aero will be the same riders getting their butts kicked without aero.
Maximum sustainable power output is the real determinant, not aero equipment. There are a lot of riders with aero equipment who are not good at time trials. What matters is having the legs and lungs along with a strong work ethic to improve in the discipline, not a piece of equipment.
Ok, so I guess I should clarify my "majority rules" statement. I was having a little fun with it, I think everybody needs to remember this is about bike racing and it is fun, and arguing/discussing this issue can be fun too, no egos need to be bruised.
The conclusion/recommendation to ban aero gear was based on a litany of reasons, but they were mostly financial. I'm sorry to point this out to you, but the overwhelming majority of teams in collegiate cycling are club, very few have an army of elite riders and even fewer have the budgets to support the extra wheels, bars, bikes and travel to support such endeavors. Banning aero gear allows teams with raw talent, no budget and little resources to compete with large programs on a level playing field.
UVM won the Men's D1 RR and D1 Crit this year, but they didn't stand a chance in the TTT because they were already in massive debt by sending 8 riders and bikes out to nationals. They couldn't afford to send out an extra 4 bikes for the TTT. So, tell me how is that fair?
As you said, "The riders who got their butts kicked with aero will be the same riders getting their butts kicked without aero."
By taking away aero gear teams with budgets lose a large advantage and smaller operations can be competitive.
How is that fair? I could say the same thing about how was it that UVM won those other two events, ie what competitive advantage did they have that the other teams did not have in the RR and crit? I bet if I dug around a little I'd find out they had advantages that many of their competition did not.
UVM's argument loses credibility by whining about not winning the third discipline in the championship. Seriously? I don't know if I've ever heard of such greedy sore "winning."
If I were at UVM I would be out beating the streets seeking sponsorship for that extra money to ship everything they needed to win. Instead it sounds like they chose to get the rules bent in their favor, which apparently they felt was a better use of time. Of all teams, UVM has tangible value to point to that a sponsor would be inclined to support. What values were being taught and/or learned through the chosen process?
I made this point originally with the USAC collegiate board, and that is my kids at Cumberland pay for all their own equipment. In fact, there may be just two programs able to provide any equipment to their athletes, and they aren't winning the TTT every year!
I pay for a lot for our kids to compete, but equipment isn't one of them. It could be argued that varsity cyclists are actually paying for it all too since they do pay to attend school, all of them private liberal arts colleges that are quite expensive. It's a numbers game all the way around.
Regardless of budget size at a varsity or non-varsity school, if the legs aren't there then it won't matter what equipment you're using. Rosters will ebb and flow.
If after this spring those who have to fly in do not win the TTT then the rule must be dead in the water. The pressure is now entirely on the ECCC and others who promoted this rule change.
On UVM at nationals, the only significant competitive advantage they had we're that they were in good form. Yes, they were all riding carbon bikes, and yes, some had carbon wheels, but those advantages are minimal compared to that of aero bars compared to non aero bars. It is proven that aero-bars provide a 20% drag reduction compared to riding on the hoods or in the drops. That's on a totally different order of magnitude that one gains bike riding a bike that is a little lighter or stiffer in a mass start event.
In their defense, they are not whining, I was simply making an argument and using them as an example of a team that could not afford to be competitive. Don't blame them for my statements. Additionally, knowing those guys I can say this with absolute certainty, they do go out and seek sponsors, and they do get help, but only so much. They participated in the rule-change discussion on one day in November last year, where their team of 60+ riders sent 2 representatives and had one vote at the conference meeting. Those kids spend their time time being students and training. Unfortunately they don't have a coach to help coordinate sponsorships, training and travel like the varsity programs, it's all student run.
By enacting this rule, Collegiate Cycling is bringing home one of its principles:
"(d) Ensuring that the sport we love is low cost and accessible to any student who wants to race a bike."
As you said "Rosters will ebb and flow," this rule allows small, low budget teams that happen to have some good riders one year to be competitive immediately, as opposed to doing well one year, only to have the talent graduate by the time they get sponsorship money for the next season.
Face it, non-varsity programs have moments of brilliance, and that's the beauty of collegiate. They do it all ready in the mass start events at nationals, now they'll have a chance in the TTT's to compete with large programs.
Lastly, many programs charge riders a fee to head to events each weekend on top of their tuition and other expenses. Many teams, even large ones, have students pay their own way for food, race fees and contributions to gas. Asking them to pay even more to ship out extra gear to nationals is a large ask, especially when many can barely afford to make it through the regular season. So it is a numbers game, and for collegiate it's all about keeping those numbers low.
There is nothing in cycling that's cheap. Everybody begins this sport with eyes wide open. To pinpoint and isolate the TT component this way is arbitrary in a big picture sense.
Carbon bikes and wheels, of course those make a difference! The cumulative effect of having lighter equipment to propel for such demanding courses is a competitive advantage, it is not all about drag. The UVM riders obviously had more power in the final moments of the RR and crit due to this advantage, versus kids who have zero carbon. Right?
The UVM kids chose their investments in this manner, a wise one mind you, in leiu of an investment in TT gear. For other riders their investments go towards TT gear instead of a regular road bike. So now USAC is going to police what riders should really be spending their money towards?
You have given me a great idea - maybe I should lobby to ban carbon entirely in collegiate. Aluminum or steel only, how does that sound?
If money is such a big issue then USAC would do more to create a smarter system to ease the burden.
First, they should limit the collegiate schedules to no more than 4 to 6 weekends per season total. You are right, the regular season is a huge financial strain, and in my view it is too long if you look at it from a cost perspective. We all feel compelled to attend all of them no matter how many actually count towards points. Second, the geographic region for each conference is too large requiring traveling distances that are very costly. The ECCC may not have this problem, but everyone else does. If the ECCC drives to all their events in 5 hours or less, then that is a huge conference advantage that should be changed. I would recommend expanding their size in order to require equal travel like the other conferences. Let's really make this fair; sounds stupid doesn't it?
Third, decrease the team size that can attend nationals as a whole, 8 to 6, and even consider reducing the TTT to three riders instead of four. One of the biggest limiter for any TTT team is getting four riders (or three) who are remotely similar in ability anway. What, take away? Well that's crazy huh.
Fourth, hold national events in central locations in the middle of the country, not towards any of the coasts. The attendance at mountain bike nationals at Truckee was terrible in my view, field sizes very small. This one is a no-brainer in my book. How many nationals are in Bend, Oregon now? Seriously? That venue is USAC talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Lastly, if this rule change is so progressive, so right, then it would implement it at other levels in the sport. If fairness and barriers to entry are such a big concern of USAC then they would completely ban aero equipment for Juniors for sure. To have this hole in collegiate only is an inconsistent joke. Now that I think about it, as a Masters level rider, maybe I'm gonna lobby for this at the Masters Nationals level too. I mean, have you seen the sick gear those guys have? Very intimidating. I compete at the front of the RR and crit, yet I do not stand a chance in the TT, but if we were forced on a road bike only, hmmmmm.
Again, it's all about the legs right? We agree on this. What's good for one is surely good for another. After that, the whiners had better start winning jerseys. If not, then buck up, invest in equipment, train smart and do it like the rest of their competition.
Also, you have killed my productivity for the last 12 hours. Thank you.
I do appreciate you taking the time to chime in though.
It seems to me that if you believe the same guys will win on or off the TT equipment and that it is all about the rider, engines, and legs you are merely proving more evidence and support for eliminating TT equipment.
If the same guys are going to win either way then it it matters not whether the equipment is allowed or banned so...lets save everyone some money and make it easier on most by getting rid of the TT equipment. After all, the same folks are gonna win.
If it's all about the rider, legs, and engine then the TT equipment makes no difference in developing riders for or getting them on pro teams. The teams care about the engine and that will show no matter the equipment so once again it seems to me that it makes it easier, cheaper, and more equitable to the development in the lower ranks by getting rid of the TT gear... after all it's about the rider anyways.
Hey,
As an Officer of UVM Cycling I'm not to happy about your abrupt response to "SHopengarten". He never once mentioned he was from UVM and then you go attacking how we fundraise. Also your whole "whining" comment is not justified since none of us have posted here. As a VARSITY coach that was very unprofessional of you. However, I would like to mention if I was in your position as a coach I would be possibly doing the same thing. This rule sort of puts your hard work to shame.
Also, unlike your team and the 14 others we are not and will probably never be a full funded varsity team to the extent where all our race expenses will be paid for, so consider yourself very lucky. We can't even afford a coach if we want to attend races we do, keep costs down for the riders and most importantly keep collegiate racing FUN!!!. There are three of us, who are all full time students and two of us are senior engineering students in the middle of senior design projects. We ARE doing the best we can. I'm sorry we don't have one person who gets paid to commit a large portion (I'm no sure if you are full time but you still have more time each week to dedicate to your team) to go out "beating the streets" to find the funds. We're doing better this year but that may because there are more dedicated people doing the work.
Maybe instead of arguing with USAC about aero equipment you should argue with them about making our sport more marketable therefore there would be a reason to have cycling as a varsity sport at more schools. If USAC could do that maybe there will be more fully funded men's A teams. I don't want to take racing away from the lower levels of B, C, and D because that's where the fun is but maybe if they could market men's A racing in a better fashion and put on well thought out and organized National events then more schools will be willing to put money into the programs because more than just the cycling community will hear about results.
keep it real and keep it fun.
Thanks Daryl
Are you serious, attacking him? If my response is what you believe to be attacking then you'd be in for real treat had I really done so. My comment about whining is not unprofessional either, and I never "said" or implied that SHopengarten was on the team because he never said, but my gut told me he's close in some capacity.
Lighten up for goodness sake. If aren't prepared to debate your side without getting your feelings twisted then I would recommend not reading these sorts of things. To prove your points further people are going to disagree and point out holes, inconsistencies and play devil's advocate. Ask SHopengarten for whatever dose of temperament he's used to go back and forth with me, cause he's handled himself quite well. Neither he nor I have anything to apologize for towards one another.
Regarding your fundraising, I did not attack your fundraising. You are proving my point by going out and doing something proactively to change the outcome. I applaud you for seeing that opportunity and doing something about it. You're a model for other schools to follow, but unfortunately most won't take that first step. I only know of a couple who got tired enough of their situation to do something about it. In your case, there's nothing like being disappointed with an outcome and deciding to do something about it. Disappointment is a great motivator, which in the coming years you'll find your reaction to the success in RR-TT/lack of success in TTT situation to be one of your greatest learning experiences.
I will give USAC credit, they have done more in the last 1.5 years to promote collegiate cycling and market it than the previous 4. Absolutely more can and should be done, and it's going to take more programs like yours out there engaging themselves with the university and local community to make it stronger. We are in a unique situation here, and believe me, we are well aware at how fortunate we are regarding the financial side.
I hope to meet you at road nationals this year to hear more about your team's success. I am encouraged to hear it sounds like you guys are working both sides of the fence (though of course I disagree with the rule change). You have a lot to share with other programs, so if you really want to see collegiate grow you'll keep at those proactive activities and share the story later. I wish you all the best in succeeding.
To Anonymous and others - no, I am not making their point about aero equipment because the best legs will win regardless. My point is that aero equipment is a moot point for the most part, it's nullified for both sides, so why take away a critical aspect like proper equipment away? Kids who are good, have legs/lungs for TTs, they will buy the appropriate equipment to excel at it even more. It's already happening at the Juniors level. This rule only makes sense if they ban Juniors aero equipment too.
"I could say the same thing about how was it that UVM won those other two events, ie what competitive advantage did they have that the other teams did not have in the RR and crit? I bet if I dug around a little I'd find out they had advantages that many of their competition did not."
Are you implying that UVM Cycling is doping their athletes?
To another anonymous - No, doping is not my implication. I am not the kind of guy to hold back my thoughts. Had doping been on my mind I would have said so, but as you can read I did not mention doping.
I have more faith in collegiate cyclists than they do of themselves; more faith in their ability to tap into their amazing potential, and more faith they'll take a proactive path to affect change for themselves and their teammates. Coaches like myself are not vesting their livelihoods to stoke negative fires, but rather we are here to show you a better path, a better way, one that will make a difference not just today but well into your future.
Post a Comment
<< Home