What’s all the fuss about the Rider of the Year (ROY) competition? It’s pretty simple – create a series to get the competitive juices flowing and attract top talent and large fields. Seems everyone has an opinion on the need for ROY, the relevance, the success, having ROY winners for many categories, etc. Have your opinion but leave ROY alone unless you’ve got ideas on how it could be improved, like me.
Let’s address the issues one by one.
There shouldn’t be a ROY competition.
Wrong – If you don’t care about ROY, fine. Let the others who do have fun using it as a motivator, who target key ROY races, track their performance, and take pride in their placing. What good does it do to eliminate it?
There should only be one overall ROY winner.
Wrong – Sure I think we should make a much bigger deal about the best all-around rider in the 1/2 category but not at the expense of all others. Us little folk in the lower ranks probably have even more interest in the competition. Let’s face it, we’re all out for the thrill of the competition and to get a little glory. I’ve overheard numerous conversations about ROY during the season. “Gee, you’re really doing well in the ROY standings.” “I’m only X points out of the top ten.” “I’m going to go to Event X cause it’s a ROY event.” I think it would really hurt the lower categories not to have a ROY competition.
I can attest that I went to a few events that weren’t real high on my list just because they were ROYs. Who in their right mind would have toed the line at the Charity TT if ROY points weren’t up for grabs? Well I guess there are a few, cyclists are a little nuts.
The expense for having multiple ROY winners is trivial. If the MCF can’t afford trophies we’re in trouble. The most significant impact of multiple ROY categories is in the compiling and tracking of results. There’s room to improve there, more on that later.
ROY isn’t relevant.
Partially Agree – ROY is relevant to those who think it’s relevant. Profound eh? Well if you win ROY and you don’t give a crap then don’t show up to the banquet and don’t care. If you take pride in finishing in 5 th place in the Masters 4/5 category then more power to you. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
ROY could be more relevant if it was a better representation of the best all-around rider. ROY events should be the best events and scoring should represent balanced success in all disciplines of road racing. The 2007 ROY competition factored in the best seven results out of ten regardless of what type of event it was. Riders could have and did benefit greatly by exceeding well in one discipline, namely time trialing.
There were five ROY time trial events on the season which meant that 57% of one’s ROY points could come from one specialty. Exceeding in time trialing is a sure sign of a very strong, fit rider but there are many other factors that can affect results. Equipment, experience, and specialization are play a role and frankly many can’t afford time trial bikes and disc wheels and make do with clip on bars and road wheels. Good time-trialers seem to always finish about the same give or take a few places. One could argue, and I will, that it’s much more difficult to achieve consistent results in road races and criteriums.
There are just so many factors that can impact one’s finish like positioning, crashes, getting gapped, riders clipping pedals, contact with other riders, aerobic abilities, beyond threshold efforts, sprinting, etc. I don’t mean to bash time trialing, which in the interest of full disclosure - I’m not good at it, but I am merely trying to suggest that there should be balance. Look at stage racing, 57% of the stages are not time trials. Look at racing in the U.S., the majority of pro/elite level racing is criteriums because they’re easier to conduct. We are lucky here locally because there are so many time trials on the schedule but the bread and butter of local racing is criteriums.
So what’s the answer? Ten ROY events, the best two time trial results, the best two road race results, and the best three criterium results determine the winners. You’re welcome.
ROY event should be selected because they are the best events.
Correct! – What are the best events? The best events are events held on the best courses we have and are promoted by proven race promoters who put on safe, efficient, well attended races. Sorry newbie but your new event in Boondockville ain’t going to be a ROY event until you and your event prove themselves. It should be a privilege to host a ROY event like State Championships should be as well. But wait you say. I implied that ROY can help attendance at events. True but ROY status should not be used just to get people to show up at an event that may or may not even be held. If you put on a poor event at a venue that’s not particularly inviting ROY shouldn’t be your savior.
Having ROY events held by proven promoters would have the added benefit of facilitating the collection of ROY results and greatly decrease the time spent compiling them. There should be a set of requirements that standardize how result data is collected and transferred. Russ Loucks does yeoman’s work on managing this and we should implement changes that are achievable and make management of the standings less time consuming. On-line pre-race registration should be a must for ROY events. Chip timing would be nice huh – that’s another story.
ROY promotes sandbagging.
Wrong – Sandbaggers promote sandbagging. Do people linger around their category too long sometimes? Yep. Do people upgrade when they shouldn’t? Yep. It’s like thieves – if they want to do it, you’re not going to do a whole lot to deter them. I’m positive that some have had enough upgrade points to move up and have waited for one more ROY event so they could lock it up. I don’t have a problem with that. If they’re not winning everything under the sun, their hard work is paying off and they’re just having a good season then they’ve earned it. If someone has just been totally dominating a category it’s likely they’ve got enough points and enough peer pressure to upgrade long before they’ve done seven ROY events. If they don’t upgrade when they should then shame on them. Dopers suck and so do sandbaggers.
Changes are already in store for ROY in 2008. The ROY categories have been revised slightly with the most significant change coming with the revision of the Masters 30+ 4/5 category to 35+ 3/4. The other change will be the addition of a Women’s Masters category. This category will likely be combined on race days with other fields but will be scored separately. Why change the Masters 4/5 field? Field size, questionable need to include Cat 5s, and safety were all factors that spurred the debate. What impact the Men’s 35+ 3/4 change will have is yet to be seen. There will undoubtedly be Cat 3s from the 35+ field who will opt to race in this new category. Masters Cat 5 racers will be forced to race with the Senior 5 field. Races will likely be a bit faster, fields will probably be a little smaller mostly from the age change, and racing will hopefully be safer. The 2007 season saw very large M 4/5 fields which resulted in tight racing especially in the road races. Races didn’t split much due to the large fields which left large groups to fight it out for the finish and resulted in many late race crashes. The pace should be higher and the selection in road races should leave fewer riders around late in the race and should lead to more successful break-away attempts. Race length is still a big question and will lie in the hands of individual race promoters. Will they lengthen road races due to the addition of the 3s? Is there enough time during an event to tack on an extra lap for the 35+ 3/4 field? We’ll see. Should make for some exciting racing and a very hot ROY chase.
Stay tuned to bikethrow.com for a Men’s 35+ Primer this spring.
Comments 46
Ugh.
Preface: I think ROY is a waste of time. I’ve never done a race simply because it is ROY, and I don’t have any idea where I’ve finished in ROY competitions.
My points:
1) ROY is irrelevant because it makes itself irrelevant. Why are so many of the events time-trials? Why aren’t the best run and best promoted races ROY events? Who decides which races get to be ROY events and what is the criteria? I could go on…
2) If some people care so much about ROY, why not allow those people to buy into the ROY competition by charging an annual fee to compete? For instance, WiSport charges a fee to compete in their “rider of the year” competitions — why not MCF? If ROY is so necessary, why not make it self-supporting (and possibly even a money-maker for the MCF)?
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 11:19 am ¶Mr. Frye, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
***
In all seriousness, I think that the ROY races need to be chosen by a committee. The thing that scares me the most about ROY is that it “king makes” ROY events, such as Ken Woods, rather than reward events that are of far superior quality in terms of organization and promotion.
Just my $.02.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 11:24 am ¶tuffy, you do pay that annual fee.. it’s called the MCF surcharge.. the MCF has accumulated over 20 grand of surcharge and license fee kick backs and at this point ROY is the only output returned to the racers outside of the banquet. i think ROY should be broadened; team comp, most improved etc.. killing it is going in the wrong direction
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 1:09 pm ¶How many times are you going to spend that same dollar, timmer? I realize it’s not just you saying this, but every time some individual (or club) wants something from the MCF, they bring up the issue of the surcharges. I realize we have a surplus in the bank, for whatever reasons, but if we spent money on a whim every time someone had (what they deemed to be) a brilliant idea for it, we’d be flat broke as a federation.
I think having a seperate registration & fee for being tracked in ROY is a great idea - and if you’re going to increase the complexity of the competition (and hence, the scoring) you should really look at paying the person doing the legwork at a rate equivalent to minimum wage, at least. This model was used pretty successfully in the early 00’s with the MNSCS….
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶the surcharge had its place in the MCF’s growth stage in the 90s. now it’s generating more money than we know what to do with.. promoters for the most part are scraping by depending on the event. take black do for example.. close to $1000 in surcharges are collected. I think SC could find better use than to have it going in to a money market fund. I’d like to see the surcharge dropped in lieu of a ‘promoter’s fee’.. $25 per race, $50 per series of 3 races or less and $100 for series over 4 races.. stages races would count as a series depending on number of stages. this way NVGP could afford to pay the mcf surcharge or any event for that matter.. open up the mcf to a free market, sell advertising thumb nails, calendar space.. the way it’s set up now the races generating the most participants are getting hit the hardest. generate the extra income from those that WANT or can afford to pay it.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 2:40 pm ¶I agree that the surcharges should be put to better use than being in a money market fund, but what we don’t have is a shortage of ideas for what to do with it. Doing what we’ve been doing - yeah, we (the local Fed) don’t need the money. But we have had talk of bringing on marketing people, purchasing chip timing, some whispered thoughts of using MCF funding to bring back T10K - all of which are great ideas, but we don’t have the budget to do them even with the money we have at this point. So why stop the train when we’re on the cusp of being able to engage one (or a couple) of those ideas? For all but a few events, surcharges total $200 or less when you’re looking at paying out thousands in prize lists, officials and permit costs, etc etc.
What about something like the MCF covering the expense of paying the finish camera service for events?
I understand there’s a surplus, but I don’t see it as a reason to handcuff future developments by ceasing to collect it.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶sounds like only a few would benfit from those ‘ideas’.. plus you open up the typical argument being “so who’s going to manage the camera, chip timing, store it etc.. ” everyone benefits from reducing surcharge fees.. let the promoters do their own marketing if they want or need it.. or increase prize money, have more beer, pizzas etc for participants, pay volunteers or purchase gifts for volunteering. it’s not going to have an impact on the racer’s entry fee.. but it seems to me most racers don’t know where that money is going anyway. it’s the promoters who will benefit. it’s difficult to find good use of money in a volunteer supported atmosphere.
but if we started talking about putting a roof ove the NSC velodrome.. well, i’d say double the surcharge
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶Mr. Hayes,
Glad this piece “spoke” to you. Have you been hearing voices lately?
Did you “read” the section headed “ROY event should be selected because they are the best events.” Thanks for reiterating.
Thanks for reiterating my arguments in your first point as well Tuffy. Glad wee see eye to eye on some things. Your suggestion of having a separate ROY fee is compelling and certainly worthy of further review.
I don’t know what the official MCF party line is on paying “volunteers” but at some point it makes sense. That time might already be here. If ROY evolves like Timmer’s sugestion it will be madatory.
Looking forward to El Presidente chiming in on the surcharge discussion.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶a promoter would have a much easier time getting someone to help out for 10-20 bucks an hour.. take black dog (again) the club practically has to beg to get helpers to put on a safe race every-other week.. the promoter pays about $90-105 for mcf surcharges.. that’s potentially 3 helpers that would surely take advantage of it. again this is just an example of how dropping a $1 surcharge would help the promoter.. and we’ve been barking about helping the promoters for a while.. the promoter is the ultimate volunteer.. lose him/her you lose your race.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:26 pm ¶I dunno, I (for one) don’t mind parting with $40 a year to go to the MCF “fund”. Reducing my entry fees by $1 apiece over the course of the summer isn’t going to cause me to want to race any more, or any less, so I say keep the money….
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:30 pm ¶Race promoting clubs would have an easier time promoting races if a greater number of their riders actually helped out, rather than just showing up and racing every week and leaving without doing any of the “heavy lifting”…
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶it’s not about you.. it’s about the promoter..
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:35 pm ¶paid volunteers is the way to go - even if it means increasing entry fees. I think the riders have put pressure on promoters to keep prices unrealistically low for far too long. It is time to start paying for the cost of these races, and that means a little money in the promoters’ pocket.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶Chicken please meet my friend Mr. Egg.
First, I am shocked that Mr. Kruse has found this a viable forum for commenting on this situation. One would have been led to beleive that this site was “outdated” and “inept.”
Second, The MCF needs to implement ways in which to use their funds. Agreeing with both Kruse and Timmer in the terms of the Money Market is not a good use, HOWEVER, nothing better has come up and we might as well earn more money with the higher interest rate than letting it sit in an account doing nothing.
Also, in my opinion using the funds as “loans” while okay at first, is a little lame when considering there are over $20,000 in the account and no real output of the money. For instance, the loan to the track for the new trailer should not of have had to be paid back!
It was a capital improvement that brought value to the velodrome and local cycling community. The MCF needs to prove that it is doing its part in helping the community.
In the past the MCF has paid tons of money for a banquet. This is also a waste. We should instead do a low-key banquet and find ways in improving races for the benefit of the promoters. The promoters are key, but taking away the surcharges is not a proper solution.
Instead the ultimate solution is chip timing.
I believe that there should be a marginal prize list for ROY, but that prize list should only exist in the Cat1/2 Men and Women categories, thus getting rid of the sandbagging option.
Why is there a ROY category for everyone? Is it to make us feel good about ourselves? I am going to go to the next MCF meeting and ask for a Right Handed, 26 year-old, Irish-Armenian category. Just so I can get a lame medal at the 2008 banquet.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶THE BANQUET HAS NEVER BEEN FREE AND MEDALS ARE NEVER LAME.. I HAVE A THOUSAND
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:25 pm ¶doh, caps lock is almost as bad as the ‘insert’ key
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:25 pm ¶S-R, r u calling the MCF Banquet, which u personally are organizing, “lame”? I find that a little funny.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶i’m just glad my subject change worked.. i hate it when everyone picks on ROY
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶For instance, the loan to the track for the new trailer should not of have had to be paid back!
That was Bob’s call - the MCF offered to forgive the loan, but Bob insisted on repaying it….
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:37 pm ¶Well put Frye. I agree with all of it.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:48 pm ¶Evidently I hate it too Timmer. Why on earth do so many people feel that success in any other field is irrelevant or lame? Do you feel the same about winning a race or getting a medal for a race? I’ll be Timmer clear on this HATERS, YOU’LL NEVER BE HAPPY! If you don’t take pride in doing well in ROY or winning a race in a cat 4 event, you won’t feel any different as a cat 2.
I am in the majority here in that I will likely never be a cat 2. I am old, I have a wife and 3 y/o twins, and a job I take very seriously. When I won a race this season it was a “lowly” Masters 3/4/5 race and my wife heard me scream when I crossed the line in Rosemount. I was 30 lbs heavier two years ago when I was a DNF king and I told myself I was going to win ROY the next year. I finished 2nd am proud of it.
Categories are there for a reason. If you don’t feel you are worthy of a ROY championship, a medal, or your prize money cause you don’t want to lower yourself then give it back or donate your winnings. Maybe that will give you satisfaction.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:58 pm ¶Darrin Homme wrote:
S-R, r u calling the MCF Banquet, which u personally are organizing, “lame”? I find that a little funny.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶
Yes.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 5:29 pm ¶So am I to understand, that in next year’s format, if you are an under 35 cat 4, you will essentially be racing in what was formerly the cat 3 cat category? If so, how does that make sense?
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 8:12 pm ¶the mcf should give me the $20k.
seriously.
i will host the tour of 10k, buy chip timing, host the banquet, and get us some marketing.
skibby/lockwood, email me for direct deposit info.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 8:40 pm ¶jim r,
Cat 4s under 35 will be in the Men’s 4 field, aka Senior Men’s 4.
Just to clarify, my mention of paying volunteers was specifically directed at ROY administrators (Russ Loucks).
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 9:30 pm ¶Tuffyies right there is to many TTs. I dont drive 155 miles to ride 5 miles than turn around and drive back Now THATS LAME.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 10:23 pm ¶In what proposal is there a senior cat 4 field, and how do these changes shake out as regards races?
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 11:44 pm ¶Question.
Why can’t “we” have ROY be sponsored by a business? That business would then pick categories they find fit and even pick the races that would be ROY events. At the end of the year that said sponsor would then throw the end of the year party for the “winners.”
Simple, yes?
Why does the MCF have to be involved at all?
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 11:47 pm ¶Jim R.-
Remember, that promoters of non-ROY events can still promote any categories that they want, therefore promoters that aren’t very “involved” with going to meetings and reading internet discussion groups will continue with the older categories.
This is just another flaw in this system.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 8:56 am ¶For a bunch of people that don’t care about ROY or think it is relevant, you sure do seem to get wrapped around axle complaining about it. Sheesh.
As stated in the last MCF meeting minutes, here’s the proposal:
a) Add Masters women category
b) Juniors categories remain the same
c) Men 1/2 category
d) Men 3 category
e) Men 4 category
f) Masters 35+ 3/4 category
g) Masters 35+ open category
h) Masters 50+ open category
The only change here that might have any real affect on race fields is that promoters will have a Masters 35+ 3/4 instead of a Masters 30+ 4/5 field. If anything life gets a little harder only for Masters 4’s that will now find themselves mixed in with 3’s. This affects precisely none of you complainers.
ROY is cheap. It’s just a scoring system to create competition. It’s not draining the MCF coffers or sending promoters away. ROY’s real purpose is to get more people to show up at races, and I’ll admit it has gotten me to show up at some TT’s and Crits that I might have skipped otherwise.
Can we make ROY better so as to be an even better incentive for racers to show up - sure. Let’s hear more ideas about how to do that, rather than a bunch of buzzkill hyperbole about how to determine who the “best” rider is.
Well done, Sir Frye.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 10:21 am ¶Russ is adding some sponsors to the ROY competition for 2008.
I agree with Timmer, there is no need to have riders pay for ROY.
Re the MCF fees. A few years back the MCF didn’t have much money in its coffers but the balance has grown due to successful racing calendars and austerity by the MCF itself. The importance of a budget is evident. The budget needs to be based on the mission/vision/goals of the MCF, that’s why a mission creating summit is important. I am in the process of putting together some proposals for such a summit for the next MCF meeting.
As far as paying the volunteer who is co-ordinating ROY? There are pro’s/cons, I would think that such a decision would also come from the goals of the MCF…
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 10:59 am ¶oh boy, Mr. Prez seems to imply that if anyone is going to get paid, it is going to be #1 first…
All right, in your kleptocracy, how much should we pay Your Highness?
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶Just to make sure we are all on the same page, my previous comment was a joke.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶actually paying the prez is not such a bad idea……….if it was an actual elected by the members (not the board) and a paying position…..
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:28 pm ¶maybe people would actually have a plan from the get go and mcf would be a functional body not an awards dinner and fees paid.
I’m yer Highness, an I’ll take no money and like it.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶Now I regret even posting. I don’t think that any of the mcf board people should be paid a red cent.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶green dollar?
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶Dont worship, respect.
Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶skibbs, don’t chicken out now… i like what i see of your reign and wish you all the best…and some of the best is hoping that coralling a of a herd of cats like mcf should be a paying position, you take the time and we all know time is money.
Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 10:11 am ¶I’m with Dan I on this. I’d been away from the racing scene for a few years until the 2007 season and didn’t really know about ROY until midway through the season. Once I knew, I hit as many ROY races as I could. In 2008, ROY is a big goal.
I’m never going to have the time or talent to become a Cat 1/2 racer, so I need a different type of goal to enrich my bike racing. That’s what ROY provides, an alternate outlet for marginally talented racers to measure themselves against others. And the season-long nature of ROY helps me stay focused and fit over the long haul. How anyone can construe these benefits as “irrelevant”, I’ll never know.
BTW, I wouldn’t be opposed to a ROY registration fee as long as the money was put to some good use, whether that takes the form of a stipend for promoters to pay volunteers or whatever. Makes sense to me.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 11:56 am ¶cats 1-2-3 should be combined. 3-4 should be combined. 4-5 combined. A, B, C format. Masters would start at 50+. 50+ cats 4/5, and 50+ cats 1-2-3. Why have a 35 yr old cat. 1 who just retired from pro racing be in the masters? juniors race their category. The reason I combined so many categories is the tiny field sizes we have hear in MN. The USA Cycling rulebook states for a race to count for upgrade process, it must have atleast 50 riders. Most cat. 1-2’s, 3s races here in MN have less riders than people in my family.
Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 5:20 pm ¶Im not sure about broadening cat’s. I definitely think that the junior races should be handled differently. Racing in 5-10 man fields doesn’t help juniors gain race experience.
Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶In MN racing, there is no correlation between age and ability. We are not fast enough to separate age cats. Simple as that. Will a very fit 40yr old have trouble keeping up in the Tour of California? Will a very fit 40 yr old have any trouble with the Cloquet Crit?
Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 8:28 pm ¶instead of age or ability I think there should be weight classes. They have a clydesdale division in triathlon and marathons, why not cycling?
Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 9:58 pm ¶All the little people would be in one race, they’d all get blown over by the wind and crash.
Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 10:34 pm ¶There is a clydesdale class in the MNSCS, at least in Sport and Citizen classes. No clydesdales in Comp or Expert classes because we terminate them in a special ceremony, kind of like Logan’s Run.
Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 10:57 pm ¶Post a Comment