New UCI Cross System next year?

I hope you're wrong on the elimination of the Cat 3 races; that would seriously suck. Where would
the incentive be for new races who want to become part of the UCI calendar? One would think that you
don't act based on a couple of whining [censored]; but this is the UCI, so nothing would surprise me.

If the euros are so worried about riders raking up points in cat 3 races, then reduce the points.
That would make much more sense; but this is the UCI, so no chance in hell this will happen.

Alan

jerry said:

Anyone get the details on the new Cross setup for next year, as far as points and schedules
and stuff?

I read they are resetting the points to zero and deleting the cat 3 category, and allowing the top
50 into the new World Series thing, but that is it.

How do they plan to start the season if there is no ranking? Something like this year where they
lined em up by country for the first couple races?

If the Cat 3 thing is true, its going to flatten the US cross scene for UCI points. I believe this
is in direct response to the US scene, and complaints from euros who are bumped out of the top 25
by US riders (and thus more lucrative start contracts...) etc.

Anyone in Belgium get the un-translated true scoop on this? Or are details not published?

Jerry

"Alan Atwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I hope you're wrong on the elimination of the Cat 3 races

Dumbass -

Wow, they should be getting rid of Masters Fatties races instead.

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then you all can blame it on the Bush backlash and feel good about it.

Dumbass -

I blame all of our nation's ills on B. Clinton sticking a cigar into Monika Lewinsky.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

I blame all of our nation's ills on B. Clinton sticking a cigar into Monika Lewinsky.

Good enough, as this led to Bush's election.

But why stop there? I think a direct chain events can easily be extended back to Oswald's steady
aim.... it led to Johnson, who's programs resulted in Reagan, who set up George "41" Bush, who's
early popularity weeded out the field of Democratic challengers and allowed Clinton in.

Could it be extended to back to Booth?.... That's a stretch.

Dan

Before this thread gets too far a field...

For what it is worth, the 2004 UCI rulebook arrived a couple of weeks ago and there is still mention
of Cat 3 races...

Wade

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

I blame all of our nation's ills on B. Clinton sticking a cigar into

Monika

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lewinsky.

Good enough, as this led to Bush's election.

But why stop there? I think a direct chain events can easily be extended back to Oswald's steady
aim.... it led to Johnson, who's programs resulted in Reagan, who set up George "41" Bush, who's
early popularity weeded out

the

Quoted message said:

field of Democratic challengers and allowed Clinton in.

Could it be extended to back to Booth?.... That's a stretch.

Dan

Actually, my impression of what I read was that they were renaming things, so yes they were getting
rid of cat 3 races in name. They're moving to that all important hors cat races for WC's and
whatever other names they come up with for the lower cats. I did not interpret what I read as actual
elimination. But who really knows...

"Wade Summers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<2cvQb.8364$_H5.3649@lakeread06>...

Quoted message said:

Before this thread gets too far a field...

For what it is worth, the 2004 UCI rulebook arrived a couple of weeks ago and there is still
mention of Cat 3 races...

Wade

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

I blame all of our nation's ills on B. Clinton sticking a cigar into

Monika

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lewinsky.

Good enough, as this led to Bush's election.

But why stop there? I think a direct chain events can easily be extended back to Oswald's steady
aim.... it led to Johnson, who's programs resulted in Reagan, who set up George "41" Bush, who's
early popularity weeded out

the

Quoted message said:

field of Democratic challengers and allowed Clinton in.

Could it be extended to back to Booth?.... That's a stretch.

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

I blame all of our nation's ills on B. Clinton sticking a cigar into Monika Lewinsky.

Good enough, as this led to Bush's election.

But why stop there? I think a direct chain events can easily be extended back to Oswald's steady
aim.... it led to Johnson, who's programs resulted in Reagan, who set up George "41" Bush, who's
early popularity weeded out the field of Democratic challengers and allowed Clinton in.

Could it be extended to back to Booth?.... That's a stretch.

Dan

Claire Luce Booth? That is a stretch. (Note that Lincoln was a Republican, but his kind of
Republican in no way resembles what call themselves that today.)

--
tanx, Howard

Said you hit Roddy Piper, and didn't get a hassle, Promised your girl filet mignon, then took
her to White Castle! LL Cool J

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[email hidden] (chris) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Actually, my impression of what I read was that they were renaming things, so yes they were
getting rid of cat 3 races in name. They're moving to that all important hors cat races for WC's
and whatever other names they come up with for the lower cats. I did not interpret what I read as
actual elimination. But who really knows...

The way i read it, Cat 3 is gone, and you have to step up to Cat 2 in terms of money, etc. to have a
UCI race. The criteria for Cat 3 are gone, and they have added a top level called HC, but gotten rid
of the old top level of World Cup, so in essence, they renaimed WC to HC, and got rid of Cat 3.

Talking to JP, he hears that this is the case, and its in response to complaints about US riders and
British riders getting easy points. Thats the talk around the pits anyway.

J

But will the points structure change at all, or will Cat 2's have the cat 3 points structure? I
think its moot, however. Considering Jon is the only guy cracking the top 20, we're really not
taking advantage of the points. In the end, it might force a few US UCI's to revert to non-ranked
races, but many will probably move up.

Its ironic, because this case seems to mirror the whole D-3 thing in the U.S. It gives U.S. teams a
chance to be pro without all the expense, but falls short of the European standard of true
development team.

Personally, I think the UCI has wrecked the cross ideal with the loss of barriers. Yes, many Euro
races don't need barriers to get riders off the bike, but U.S. races often lack the running.

CH [email hidden] (jerry) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (chris) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Actually, my impression of what I read was that they were renaming things, so yes they were
getting rid of cat 3 races in name. They're moving to that all important hors cat races for WC's
and whatever other names they come up with for the lower cats. I did not interpret what I read
as actual elimination. But who really knows...

The way i read it, Cat 3 is gone, and you have to step up to Cat 2 in terms of money, etc. to
have a UCI race. The criteria for Cat 3 are gone, and they have added a top level called HC, but
gotten rid of the old top level of World Cup, so in essence, they renaimed WC to HC, and got rid
of Cat 3.

Talking to JP, he hears that this is the case, and its in response to complaints about US riders
and British riders getting easy points. Thats the talk around the pits anyway.

J

[email hidden] (chris) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

But will the points structure change at all, or will Cat 2's have the cat 3 points structure? I
think its moot, however. Considering Jon is the only guy cracking the top 20, we're really not
taking advantage of the points. In the end, it might force a few US UCI's to revert to non-ranked
races, but many will probably move up.

I did not get any info on the points schedule, but I think in the end the criteria for being a UCI
race will be similar to Cat 2 this year, which I think is not necessarily just automatic based on
prize money. I am not a promoter, Myerson might know since he has one.

I would conjecture that many races that are cat 3 this year will NOT upgrade, as its a finacial
burden. It may in fact be GOOD for the sport, in that it will perhaps make a smaller series of "Cat
2" races more akin to the Super Cup, that will draw in the bigger competition and perhaps some euros
and raise the level a bit. I still think we need the show case series with big money and big points
and fewer races to draw in more talent and validate the racing.

Quoted message said:

Its ironic, because this case seems to mirror the whole D-3 thing in the U.S. It gives U.S. teams
a chance to be pro without all the expense, but falls short of the European standard of true
development team.

Yah, like saturn, its basically taking advantage of the system. So is the multitude of Cat 3 races
with inadequate depth of field that we had this year. It pisses off people in Europe. [censored] they
already hate us for GW Bush.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I think the UCI has wrecked the cross ideal with the loss of barriers. Yes, many Euro
races don't need barriers to get riders off the bike, but U.S. races often lack the running.

JP says the hardest races in Belgium are the ones with no barriers. The races there are just more, I
dunno, interesting. The terrain, the geography, the man made features they put in, the course
crossings (up and overs), everything just adds to the difficulty and spectator intereset, IMHO. I
have been to most of the courses on the east coast, and even Gloucester is alot of tape on grass
fields. Europe is just a more interesting place I think! What I am trying to say is, you dont miss
the barriers at all. A race here w/o barriers would be a crit, you are correct. But its not the
barriers, its the venues (IMHO).

J

I highly doubt that the races that are on the present calendar as 1.3 races for '04 will move up, if
the system changes. At this point there are only 10 UCI 1.2 races in the US for this year. The
financial committment of a 1.2 race is in the neighborhood of $8k-$10k, depending on how many people
you can get to volunteer time & services. This may be enough to deter anyone from making the
investment. Will you help showcase my 1.2 race with some of this big money you speak of? If anyone
has a contact in a major corporation that would like to title sponsor a 10 race UCI series, please
speak up and send him our way.

Mike Hebe Title Sponsor seeking promoter of November 6th. Harrisburg, PA UCI 1.2 race.

"jerry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (chris) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But will the points structure change at all, or will Cat 2's have the cat 3 points structure? I
think its moot, however. Considering Jon is the only guy cracking the top 20, we're really not
taking advantage of the points. In the end, it might force a few US UCI's to revert to non-
ranked races, but many will probably move up.

I did not get any info on the points schedule, but I think in the end the criteria for being a UCI
race will be similar to Cat 2 this year, which I think is not necessarily just automatic based on
prize money. I am not a promoter, Myerson might know since he has one.

I would conjecture that many races that are cat 3 this year will NOT upgrade, as its a finacial
burden. It may in fact be GOOD for the sport, in that it will perhaps make a smaller series of
"Cat 2" races more akin to the Super Cup, that will draw in the bigger competition and perhaps
some euros and raise the level a bit. I still think we need the show case series with big money
and big points and fewer races to draw in more talent and validate the racing.

Quoted message said:

Its ironic, because this case seems to mirror the whole D-3 thing in the U.S. It gives U.S.
teams a chance to be pro without all the expense, but falls short of the European standard of
true development team.

Yah, like saturn, its basically taking advantage of the system. So is the multitude of Cat 3 races
with inadequate depth of field that we had this year. It pisses off people in Europe. [censored] they
already hate us for GW Bush.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I think the UCI has wrecked the cross ideal with the loss of barriers. Yes, many
Euro races don't need barriers to get riders off the bike, but U.S. races often lack the
running.

JP says the hardest races in Belgium are the ones with no barriers. The races there are just more,
I dunno, interesting. The terrain, the geography, the man made features they put in, the course
crossings (up and overs), everything just adds to the difficulty and spectator intereset, IMHO. I
have been to most of the courses on the east coast, and even Gloucester is alot of tape on grass
fields. Europe is just a more interesting place I think! What I am trying to say is, you dont miss
the barriers at all. A race here w/o barriers would be a crit, you are correct. But its not the
barriers, its the venues (IMHO).

J