I agree with your suggested outline of restructuring the masters categories towards an ability based system.

It would be necessary to allow some dynamics between the masters categories, e.g. upgrading riders to the next higher category after x number of points scored, since the start of the current season, and also allowing a downgrade to the next lower category by season end, if a rider scored less than y number of points in the category they were upgraded to during the season.
There are plenty of models to look at for ideas and inspiration, as the ability based categorization is currently used by other national federations.

Stephen,
So add a M-Veterans D if 3 isn't enough. This would still be 6 categories less than the current system.

And let the promoters combine the W-Veterans and SW3.

Groth,
Yes upgrades and downgrades would need to be issued as people age and skills change.

Alan,

Over the past couple of years, the ability based categorization has been suggested on several occasions by several folks, including myself. However, even though on paper it LOOKS like a Masters A, B, C, D makes sense, the issue is to get the masters to agree with this. As Stephen pointed out, most of our ACA members are masters. Therefore in order for this to happen the Master will have to go along with it. In general it seems that, as masters riders advance in age they are less and less interested in riding with younger folks. Yes, there are exceptions. As a SM65+ I would have no problem racing with SM55 or SM45 in one of these ability based categories. However, it so appears that I am the exception and not the rule. As you may recall, I eluded to this ability based system during our Masters Summit earlier this year. I also tied this to a masters age of 40 instead of 35. In a last year post I showed the exact number of categories that you are showing now (albeit with an added D category). However, this idea was not well received by the Masters. I have to admit though that the outcome might have been different if this idea would have been given proper “advertising” prior to the summit.

So how about we do this? This fall let us get together again with another masters summit and pose this idea to them; i.e. Masters categories A, B, C, D combined with a Masters age of 40 instead of 35. You will have my full backing on this. However, I think we need to be prepared to duck.

Please note that under the current color system a Stage Race or Omnium can still be run by, for the crit, combining categories just like I the “old” days and the score them separately. Yes, for these cases the crit race day will also be as long as those in the ”old” days.

The three-group system is by no means a fix-all. But it has accomplished the first thing that we needed to accomplish: Shorter crit race days. It is these short race days that will hopefully attract more folks into becoming race officials. In addition, the recent survey (results to be posted in the near future) showed an overwhelming support for the two new cats (SM45/4 and SM35/3).

As again Stephen pointed out, with the exception of the (very high turn out for) the WOT, we really have not data yet to gage the three color group crit system by. I also attribute the WOT record turnout to the fact that we were all ready to race after the many snow related cancellations. So how about we give it a chance and look at the stats at the end of the season.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with using the ability based masters system. But we need to get the vast majority of masters on board with this idea before we can run with it. If they don’t like it and don’t show up to race because of it, it will just be a Pyrrhus victory.

In the mean time, as Henrik (Groth) would say, “Ever Onward”

Harry.

I am glad someone opened up this can or worms. I do agree with Stephen, as much as I do not like it, we are only a month in.

-I like your reduced start times and think that makes a heck of a lot more sense then the huge # of categories we run now.

-We need to take a real look at all categories. Maybe this is not PC to say, but the women's1/2 fields, on average have gotten really small (Stephen is dead right, women are only 10% to 15% of a race day). Men's pro1/2 and 3's have also gotten smaller. We need a solution that makes it all work.

-Yes the new BAR/BAT has made it harder for the promoter running the races in/around Glenwood, and for Boulder racing, trying to figure out this weekend. However that is not an excuse that holds water for all the late postings. The guide lines have been out for a while, they may suck, but promoters need to work with them.

-Alan: you say going to 40 plus aligns us with USAC, how? USAC starts masters at 30 and that is where masters nationals starts. I looked all over the US and could not find a region where masters start at 40. So why is this a solution?

-I remember Harry mentioning going to an ability based system for masters at the annual meeting. I think it is a good idea. Maybe a 45 plus open field is about the same level as a 35 plus cat. 3 race, so why not call them the Masters B field? I think this idea is worth exploring, as we need to consolidate the 7 different masters fields we have now. One question for the people who support all these masters categories, why is Colorado the only state with so many different categories? If they do not need this in CA or New England, where the population is much larger, why do we do it in Colorado?

-Harry: WE NEVER HAD A MASTERS SUMMIT. I suggested that idea at the annual meeting and it got good feedback. Jon scheduled the BAR/BAT meeting for January. I even asked Jon if that was to be the Masters Summit and he said no. So please do not get the meeting in January confused with what I proposed or wanted to be involved with. I still think we need to have another meeting and should do it soon.

One thing to think about with master racing:
In a 45+ plus open groups you’ll get a couple of current Cat 1 riders to show up and they’ll hammer the hell out of everyone. Making it no fun to race, just to get blown out and never have the hope of being competitive. I personal am one of those guys’s and will never do a master race. So we make 45+3 and 45+4’s…..Why not make one 45+ or 35+ group and exclude anybody holding a current Cat. 1 license?
But I guess if I were strong enough to get my Cat 1, I’d like to be the Big Fish in the pond too….

It's really nice to see someone take up the banner and discuss this situation to get it out in the open.

I personally have no direct link as I am not a masters racer, however as a possibly unintended consequence of the recent proliferation of categories, I have seen my racing cut painfully short. As P/1/2 rider I remember the days of 90 minute criteriums, but now we are lucky to get 75 minutes. Additionally, I can hardly call a 58 mile race a Road Race (no matter how much I like and usually do well at Deer Trail). Even BAR/BAT suggests our races be 80 minutes or 80 miles, but we are lucky to hit that sort of length ever, let alone on a regular basis. It is sad to see the numbers in the elite race dwindling, but you can look at the major races each year like NBP, Bannock, Longmont, and the like and see we are still able to get 80+ racers toeing the line. Perhaps if we went to a 40+ Veterans system, the numbers in the Senior categories would pick up for the slightly lighter attended racing on the calendar evening out the fields a little. It would be nice to see six or seven races with 70 starters as opposed to three or for with 90, and a few with less than 40.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Scott. Maybe what it takes is training just a little bit more to keep up on the weekends. Sometimes we have to face rejection, not everyone deserves a medal. While that may not be the goal of the new categories, it is a result. I would rather bust my arse week in and week out for the occasional top 10 than win from time to time a race knowing I wasn't giving every last effort to achieve that victory.

As much as we see this effecting masters racing, I respectfully request that we keep the entirety of the ACA licensed riders in mind when making big decisions like this. It is painfully obvious that all racing suffers when one group is focused on more than another, be it Junior, Women, Master or Senior racing. Everyone is effected by these decisions and its important for all involved to have a serious discussion. I think Tarkington may have been right, not just political when he called it a BAR/BAT summit. Perhaps he was able to see beyond just the situation at hand to the possible changes to the entire system in order to integrate such initially mild changes to the categories. Every minor change can effect us all.

couple of points:

1) CJ, you've been a vocal opponent of women's racing in every thread where it's mentioned for several years. While I agree with some of your general points, I really wish you wouldn't do that.

From my admittedly brief scan it would seem women's fields have been growing considerably , especially recently since the addition of the SW3 breakout option, and even the Master's field was well attended at NBP this weekend despite the early start time. It kills me that a combo of work related and logistics / time issues have nixed my ability to race yet this year.

2) Alan has a great point with the merit ranked Master's setup he's proposed. I think this works well in other regions and would be a good idea. You don't even have to call it "Vets" as "Masters A/B/C/D was the norm for several regions I've raced in the past.

3) BAR/BAT is inherently flawed and it has been flawed for years. This is a combination of 3 issues: first, the points system awards too deeply, so in smaller fields everyone gets points. Why should I receive BAR/BAT ranking for placing dead last (8th?) at Sunshine HC last year? Second: it doesn't differentiate enough to higher placings, meaning it doesn't reward quality, only quantity of placings. Example: a SM P/1/2 guy who consistently places in the top 10 (not top 3, even) will almost certainly guarantee himself 1st place at the end of the season. Solution: BAR/BAT points should really only award to the top 50% of the field, regardless of field size. Placing 3rd in a field of 5 really isn't all that special, quite frankly. Finally, there's no provision to weight for field size, unlike upgrade points. This is NOT HARD TO DO if you understand basic statistics. Heck I failed 4th grade math yet was able to come up with a merit-weighted, flexible series points system for a 500-rider database that ran accurately on an excel spreadsheet back in 1996-99.

Combine all this with the fact that EVERY event on the calendar is BAR/BAT and there's not enough weight given to actually doing WELL, thus as I've said over and over again, no matter what you do, in the end it ultimately becomes a "perfect attendance" award. Last but not least, be selective. BAR/BAT shouldn't be the be all, end all for a promoter to guarantee attendance. Honestly only about 5 or 6 marquee events on the calendar really deserve this status anyway. Reward promoters who hold quality events with BAR/BAT ranking. USA Cycling already does this to a degree with their event ranking. This takes stress off the promoters as well-- if you only have the time, resources and volunteer base to hold a D class event, why go to all the pain to qualify yourself for a B or A class one?

let the rock throwing begin...

Scott H: I think you are dead on. Bike racing is hard, in every race only 1 person wins. Those of us that have been around get that. I take a lot of pride in finishing a real hard race, against better riders. That means more to me, then winning a race, where they took away all the guys better than me. Dave T made the same point and I think it is great to see a cat. 4 say that. Congratulation to you, on changing your training and doing better. That is cool.


JP2174: I am in complete agreement this is not a masters issues, it is an issue for all categories. I argued with the people behind these new categories saying they were only looking at it from their point of view and I said loudly that this will have a negative effect on all other fields at one point or another. I was told I was arrogant and elitist, but now we are having those issues across the board. We need to find solutions that are fair for the whole race day. I do not know what they are, but I think getting the groups together to talk would make some sense. Once issue is that the masters teams tend to be more into the rules and going to meeting than teams that focus on women or seniors. So what we need is some strong voices from all groups to talk about what they want and what sorts of compromises make sense.

Also when I suggested a masters summit my idea was we need to address all these new categories to get to a workable #. It was to focus on the issues within masters, not at the expense of the other people, more to the contrary, so we do not have 16 different masters categories and create issues for riders like you. I do not think that is fair. I too remember the days of the 90 minute pro/12 crits, looking up at the timer thinking we had to be half way in at Longmont, and seeing 70 minutes to go. Ouch!

I think the main topic of this thread is more about the categories than the race distances, isn't it. I beleive Joey's point was that the added categories cut down on the quality of the racing, not that the races are too short by design.


btw.....not Scott Hendricks....for the record.

All,

I apologize before hand for another long one. Yet, I hope that you will bear with me. Maybe this is the year that we can solve the number of categories/race-day-length issue in a way that is in the interest of the majority of our members, our promoters and our officials. So here we go.


Scott H (not Scott Hendricks).

I agree with you that this thread is about the BAR/BAT issues. However, I would still encourage Joseph and anybody else to enter other related/non-related issues such as the road race distances even though the may not be quite in the right folder/thread. I always respect any ACA member who is willing to take the time to participate in our discussions. And what the heck, we are all capable of multi-tasking, right?


All,

On the BAR/BAT topic: I plan to keep monitoring and contributing to the discussions and then at some point will formulate an overview of the different opinions that have surfaced. Before I finalize that overview I will post it and re-post it as necessary for all to “bleed over”. I will keep on correcting it until there is a consensus (among forum contributors) that we have something that may serve as good starting point for the subsequent Master Summit discussions.

As of now I think a summery would go something like this:
We have touched on (4) crit scenarios:
1. Last year’s number of categories with all cats running in one “too long” race day.
2. This year’s number of categories (= last year’s number plus 2) with all cats running over three “shorter” race days, plus a set of promoter selected “optional categories”.
3. Masters Categories A/B/C/D with a return to all cats running in one “not too long” race day.
4. Just in case the majority of Masters wants to keep the age based system including the two new categories (SM45/4, SM35/3) then I would also add a fourth scenario that I also touched on during the past BAR/BAT discussions. Instead of three BAR/BAT groupings we could go to two BAR/BAT groupings with only one optional race per group. We would again need to divide the categories so that the anticipated number of registrants for both groupings is about the same. So instead of each of us having one BAR/BAT race per three crits, we would have one BAR/BAT race per two crits. I would say that two groupings is lot more manageable then three groups. However we still have the draw back for the stage race crits where we have to allow combinations just to compress all cats into one day.
In the above I am not pushing one scenario over the other. I am just trying to have all possible scenarios on the table as a starting point for the subsequent summit discussions.

Here is my personal take: After having lived with the past and current BAR/BAT scenarios, I am heavily leaning towards the A/B/C/D format. As Beth and others have pointed out, it appears to have been working well in other States. However, I do not know how many 55/65 racers those other states have. It is those two age groups that I expect the most opposition from. But, I truly hope that I am dead wrong on this. In the mean time, we may disagree with them but they are ACA members and therefore their opinion counts as much as everyone else’s.

On occasion Beth has brought up the valid point that the “Best All Around” rider is really a “Best Attending Rider” system. In defense I would say that judging by the increased number of registrants for BAR/BAT events the majority of members seem to like the system. So again, like it or not, the system appears to be liked by the majority of our members. The soon to be published survey will also substantiate this. As Stephen has pointed out many times, the demographics is a changing. So if we want to serve our members, we have really no choice but to go with it.

I also would like to add a comment on the “train more” issue, brought up by Scot H (not Scott He). You will get no argument from me on that. However, here is a bit of info that only the older riders seem to know about. As we get older, the number of training hours becomes more and more limited. Not because we don’t have the time, but because our bodies need more hours to recover. During theses past months I have quizzed about half a dozen fellow 55+ and 65+ racers on this topic. Their responses were universal on this issue. Where years ago we were able to train 15 to 20 hours a week, now it seems that this training time is drastically reduced. Most folks I talked to can only train 6 to 8 hours per week with 10 being the exception rather than the rule. In fact at some point I anticipate somebody to start writing a book about “Racing in the Golden Age”. We are after all the first generation to do so. (Joe Friel, are you listening?). There is a real irony here. For years I had been looking forward to retirement so that I could train “all week”. Now that I have the time my body won’t let me. Where am I going with this? Very simple. Since the time at which this lowering of training hours occurs at different ages for different people, the A/B/C/D system would make the most sense.


Stephen,

Even though I may no longer be able to “race” (instead of just “survive”) anything over 60 miles or so, this does not mean that my excitement for the “real thing” has diminished. I agree with you 100%. We need more long road races. If I were a rich man I would hire the help needed to put them on. I still have not decided whether or not to “race” (read “survive”) Hugo, but if I don’t, I will come out and help. In the mean time I hope that a few more clubs will rise to the occasion and start helping you with Hugo and with the promotion of the Summers End RR.


To all SM-P/1/2/3/4 and SW-1/2/3/4 clubs,

Stephen has a lot of experience with Long Road Races and he is offering his expertise and knowledge as a resource. So here is your chance. Rally your teams and start promoting the 70 to 120 milers.

Harry.