|
more thoughts.
|
Payne, Shannon R
|
Sep 10, 2004 11:38 PDT
|
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C49765.48468A10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I'd like to jump in with a few comments.
1. I agree with Michelle that allotting points for track races is positive,
but could get out of hand. Since the main incentive is to get women
exploring the "world" of bike racing, perhaps we could allot participation
points for a night of racing at the track regardless of how many races you
do?
2. Regarding a competition vs. participation based series, I feel that it
should be a combination of the two. Like Mindy says, racing is not just
about participation but competition as well. That said, I think the level
of competition in the women's cat 4's is becoming prohibitively high for
many true beginners. I am not talking about women who have competed
successfully in triathlon, running, rowing, etc. and have now decided to
give bike racing a try. It's great that they're coming over and finding joy
in our sport, but the reality is that they are already active and have
clearly made a commitment to that as evidenced by their non-biking
successes.
I am talking about the true sports novice. I may be wrong, but I have felt
that NWWC was about opening the world of fitness to women through the lens
of bike racing and providing them a place to hone their fitness w/o being
dropped by women who have been active for years. It's these women who I
think are beginning to be displaced by the massive success NWWC has made in
increasing participation in women's bike racing. These days, many new cat4
racers could easily take their place fitness-wise beside seasoned cat3
racers (technique and skill aside). The true beginner is once again riding
by herself wondering why she should finish the race and come back the next
week for her measly 15 or 25 participation points which will not net her
even inside the top 20-25 by the end of the season.
One suggestion is to increase the emphasis on participation by the
decreasing the difference points-wise btwn winning the race and just
participating. This might create a better balance btwn women who
participate routinely vs those who come out and do very well just a few
times. This would maintain the spirit of competition (someone who
participates and does well on a regular basis will always beat someone who
partipates regularly without placing) while increasing the incentive to new
women to keep coming out. Another by-product might be that there is less
incentive to race just a couple times a year and win.
3. Finally, regarding the "great stage race points" debate, I think that
Eric's suggestion is the best I have heard. One thought that I have is to
perhaps make the total points out of 150 instead of 100. I think most will
agree that it is harder to go and complete a stage race than it is to show
up for and complete a one day race and racers should be rewarded for that
effort. I strongly believe that stage races are a great and positive
experience for a new racer and new racers should be encouraged to
participate.
just some thoughts to add to the mix...
best,
Shan
-----Original Message-----
From: MINDY ZIFFREN-Hall [ mailto:mzif-@msn.com <mailto:mzif-@msn.com>
]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:05 AM
To: NW-@topica.com
Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...
Only thing I feel really strongly aboout is leaving this as a
competition-based thing. I don't necessarilyl feel it should be a
participation-based series. There are processes in place that limit how many
points a rider can earn based upon when she hits the mandatory uscf upgrade
level. That reduces sandbagging. I feel strongly though that this should be
based upon performance and participation. The participation part comes in by
allowing riders participation points for ALL races, in many disciplines now.
I doubt I'll be able to make Monday's call so please consider my stance on
this one point.
Thanks,
Mindy
| | From: Michelle Maislen <mich-@microsoft.com>
Reply-To: NW-@topica.com
To: NW-@topica.com
Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:24 -0700
For the record, I totally agree that allotting points for track races is
a plus, but how would we do that? Would they all be lumped in together
or called out separately? My concern is that it's going to give some an
unfair advantage and/or make others feel pressured to race track in
order to maintain high standings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lynch [ mailto:ely-@bigfoot.com <mailto:ely-@bigfoot.com> ]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:40 AM
To: NW-@topica.com
Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...
Joyce - you make some great points about our focus. I'm looking forward
to
reading your revised mission statement.
As to assigning points from non-road races: It's a moot point (no pun
intended) for 99.9% of the racers in the series anyway. I think there
was
only one person in the Cat 4 series who requested non-road points. So
the
impact to our racers by saying this is a road-only series should be
minimal.
Regards,
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce LaGow [ mailto:joyce-@hotmail.com
|
<mailto:joyce-@hotmail.com> ]
| | Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:59 PM
To: NW-@topica.com
Subject: Re: [NWWC] One of these days...
The Cat 4 series next year will likely be participation-based, not
points
based. Participation-based = cash/prizes resulting from racing a set
number
of races on the WSBA calendar. It's my understanding that NWWC's
objective
is to educate and inspire women cycling enthusiasts, so in my opinion
the
cat 4 series should take the pressure off and encourage discovery.
* By making the series based on performance, you lose an audience with
weaker riders relatively quickly into the season.
* By making the series singularly focused on the road, you discourage
riders
exploring other cycling activities like track
* By encouraging women to continue to race as the season matures, they
will
become stronger and their results will improve which should in turn
improve
the upgrade rate.
* I'm also in favor of including mid-week training races as well, but
primarily to support our local promoters and show them that women's
cycling
is a viable contributor to their businesses.
However, we can't be responsible for tracking the results of every
single
cycling event in the NW for beginning racers - it's overwhelming. I'd
like
to continue the partnership w/ the MVA because there is so much
cross-over
between road racing & track in the NW, but I don't see a reason to track
mtn
biking, especially when they aren't governed by the USCF and race under
a
different classification system and different rules.
I would support continuing the Cat 3 series on the road, and not
including
the track, since I also think we don't want to be in the business of
keeping
track of who is a 3 on the track as well - this would be business as
usual
for the '05 season, yes?
This is a great topic for discussion for the core team.
Thanks again Eric for your thoughts! Good luck to Suz in SF and have
fun :)
- JLG
----- Original Message -----
From: "MINDY ZIFFREN-Hall" <mzif-@msn.com>
To: <NW-@topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...
Good points, thanks Eric! Now get some sleep and I"ll see ya soon!
Did we score other non-road events in this year's 2004 Series into our
road
racing Series?
I don't think we should include points for any events outside of a Road
race. Perhaps I missed this point if it was included in this year's
Series.
I feel strongly though that this is a Road series.
Thanks,
Mindy
| | From: Eric Lynch <ely-@bigfoot.com>
Reply-To: NW-@topica.com
To: NW-@topica.com
Subject: [NWWC] One of these days...
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:09:22 -0400
I will learn to send e-mail properly.
Last night I wrote a very lengthy reply to Kirstin's excellent note
|
about
| | her efforts tracking the Cat 4 series and a few concerns that she had.
|
This
| | will be a very abridged version of what I spent much time writing, and
|
to
| | my
great surprise appears to have never been sent. (Read: operator error)
First: Kirstin, many thanks for actig as pointskeeper for the Cat 4
|
series
| | for two years. You've done a stellar job in taking over from Sarah and
have
made the series possible for these beginner women. Good luck in your
|
future
| | project management efforts!
Second: Here are the three items I think we should change in the series
"rules". I wrote long, long paragraphs on the "why" of my logic in the
"lost" e-mail. These are the short, but hopefully as effective,
|
versions:
| |
1. Cycling Events Outside the Series: Any cycling event outside of the
series that a rider participates in will count as 15 points for that
|
rider.
| | These non-series events must be events that any Cat 4 rider could
participte
in as a beginner. Ie: Cat 4 track racing is fine, but Cat 3 is not. The
same
would be tru of mountain bike racing: Beginner races count; higer level
races do not. By this guideline, masters events would not qualify as
|
other
| | racers in the senior ranks would not always qualify.
2. Stage races: I agree with Kirstin that we should not "triple score"
stage races. However not everyone does all three stages, so GC placing
|
is
| | also somewhat biased. I propose that we offer 1/3 of the usuals points
|
for
| | each stage in the race (ie: 1st place in any stage would be worth 33.3
poits
vs 100 points). A bit of a pain to score, but more fair to more riders
|
in
| | more situations.
3. Last minute changes: As long as we send out regular updates to the
series on nwcycling in '05, I think it would be easy to put a
|
reasonable
| | deadline by which time we will no longer accept "corrections". Since
|
we
| | publish what we have to the listserv, it should be the riders'
responsibilities to verify their data is correct and let us know in a
reasonable time. Both Kirstin and I had people e-mail at the last
|
minute,
| | and some even after the awards ceremony. So if we set a deadline and
publish
it, the riders should be able to work within the time frame we give
|
them. I
| | hope that makes sense, as I am falling asleep as I write this.
I also hope my spelling errors are minimal tonight :-), but that's too
|
much
| | to hope for. We're over-nighting in Montreal before heading to SF
|
tomorrow
| | morning at 6 am (ouch), so I have an excuse this time.
See you next week,
Eric
|
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeR
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
|
<http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
<http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C49765.48468A10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=2>I'd like to jump in with a few comments.<BR><BR>1. I agree
with Michelle that allotting points for track races is positive, but could get
out of hand. Since the main incentive is to get women exploring the
"world" of bike racing, perhaps we could allot participation points for a night
of racing at the track regardless of how many races you do?<BR><BR>2. Regarding
a competition vs. participation based series, I feel that it should be a
combination of the two. Like Mindy says, racing is not just about
participation but competition as well. That said, I think the level of
competition in the women's cat 4's is becoming prohibitively high for many true
beginners. I am not talking about women who have competed successfully in
triathlon, running, rowing, etc. and have now decided to give bike racing a
try. It's great that they're coming over and finding joy in our sport, but
the reality is that they are already active and have clearly made a commitment
to that as evidenced by their non-biking successes. <BR><BR>I am talking
about the true sports novice. I may be wrong, but I have felt that NWWC
was about opening the world of fitness to women through the lens of bike racing
and providing them a place to hone their fitness w/o being dropped by women who
have been active for years. It's these women who I think are beginning to
be displaced by the massive success NWWC has made in increasing participation in
women's bike racing. These days, many new cat4 racers could easily take
their place fitness-wise beside seasoned cat3 racers (technique and skill
aside). The true beginner is once again riding by herself wondering why
she should finish the race and come back the next week for her measly 15 or 25
participation points which will not net her even inside the top 20-25 by the end
of the season.<BR><BR>One suggestion is to increase the emphasis on
participation by the decreasing the difference points-wise btwn winning the race
and just participating. This might create a better balance btwn women who
participate routinely vs those who come out and do very well just a few
times. This would maintain the spirit of competition (someone who
participates and does well on a regular basis will always beat someone who
partipates regularly without placing) while increasing the incentive to new
women to keep coming out. Another by-product might be that there is less
incentive to race just a couple times a year and win.<BR><BR>3. Finally,
regarding the "great stage race points" debate, I think that Eric's suggestion
is the best I have heard. One thought that I have is to perhaps make the
total points out of 150 instead of 100. I think most will agree that
it is harder to go and complete a stage race than it is to show up for and
complete a one day race and racers should be rewarded for that effort. I
strongly believe that stage races are a great and positive experience for a new
racer and new racers should be encouraged to participate. <BR><BR>just some
thoughts to add to the mix...<BR><BR>best,<BR>Shan<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: MINDY ZIFFREN-Hall [<A
href="mailto:mzif-@msn.com">mailto:mzif-@msn.com</A>]<BR>Sent: Friday,
September 10, 2004 10:05 AM<BR>To: NW-@topica.com<BR>Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of
these days...<BR><BR><BR>Only thing I feel really strongly aboout is leaving
this as a<BR>competition-based thing. I don't necessarilyl feel it should be
a<BR>participation-based series. There are processes in place that limit how
many<BR>points a rider can earn based upon when she hits the mandatory uscf
upgrade<BR>level. That reduces sandbagging. I feel strongly though that this
should be<BR>based upon performance and participation. The participation part
comes in by<BR>allowing riders participation points for ALL races, in many
disciplines now.<BR><BR>I doubt I'll be able to make Monday's call so please
consider my stance on<BR>this one
point.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Mindy<BR><BR><BR>>From: Michelle Maislen
<mich-@microsoft.com><BR>>Reply-To: NW-@topica.com<BR>>To:
NW-@topica.com<BR>>Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...<BR>>Date:
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:24 -0700<BR>><BR>><BR>>For the record, I totally
agree that allotting points for track races is<BR>>a plus, but how would we
do that? Would they all be lumped in together<BR>>or called out separately?
My concern is that it's going to give some an<BR>>unfair advantage
and/or make others feel pressured to race track in<BR>>order to maintain high
standings.<BR>><BR>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>From: Eric Lynch [<A
href="mailto:ely-@bigfoot.com">mailto:ely-@bigfoot.com</A>]<BR>>Sent:
Friday, September 10, 2004 2:40 AM<BR>>To: NW-@topica.com<BR>>Subject:
RE: [NWWC] One of these days...<BR>><BR>>Joyce - you make some great
points about our focus. I'm looking forward<BR>>to<BR>>reading your
revised mission statement.<BR>><BR>>As to assigning points from non-road
races: It's a moot point (no pun<BR>>intended) for 99.9% of the racers in the
series anyway. I think there<BR>>was<BR>>only one person in the Cat 4
series who requested non-road points. So<BR>>the<BR>>impact to our racers
by saying this is a road-only series should
be<BR>>minimal.<BR>><BR>>Regards,<BR>><BR>>
Eric<BR>><BR>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>From: Joyce LaGow [<A
href="mailto:joyce-@hotmail.com">mailto:joyce-@hotmail.com</A>]<BR>>Sent:
Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:59 PM<BR>>To: NW-@topica.com<BR>>Subject:
Re: [NWWC] One of these days...<BR>><BR>>The Cat 4 series next year will
likely be participation-based, not<BR>>points<BR>>based.
Participation-based = cash/prizes resulting from racing a
set<BR>>number<BR>>of races on the WSBA calendar. It's my
understanding that NWWC's<BR>>objective<BR>>is to educate and inspire
women cycling enthusiasts, so in my opinion<BR>>the<BR>>cat 4 series
should take the pressure off and encourage discovery.<BR>>* By making the
series based on performance, you lose an audience with<BR>>weaker riders
relatively quickly into the season.<BR>>* By making the series singularly
focused on the road, you discourage<BR>>riders<BR>>exploring other cycling
activities like track<BR>>* By encouraging women to continue to race as the
season matures, they<BR>>will<BR>>become stronger and their results will
improve which should in turn<BR>>improve<BR>>the upgrade rate.<BR>>*
I'm also in favor of including mid-week training races as well,
but<BR>>primarily to support our local promoters and show them that
women's<BR>>cycling<BR>>is a viable contributor to their
businesses.<BR>><BR>>However, we can't be responsible for tracking the
results of every<BR>>single<BR>>cycling event in the NW for beginning
racers - it's overwhelming. I'd<BR>>like<BR>>to continue the
partnership w/ the MVA because there is so much<BR>>cross-over<BR>>between
road racing & track in the NW, but I don't see a reason to
track<BR>>mtn<BR>>biking, especially when they aren't governed by the USCF
and race under<BR>>a<BR>>different classification system and different
rules.<BR>><BR>>I would support continuing the Cat 3 series on the road,
and not<BR>>including<BR>>the track, since I also think we don't want to
be in the business of<BR>>keeping<BR>>track of who is a 3 on the track as
well - this would be business as<BR>>usual<BR>>for the '05 season,
yes?<BR>><BR>>This is a great topic for discussion for the core
team.<BR>><BR>>Thanks again Eric for your thoughts! Good luck to Suz
in SF and have<BR>>fun :)<BR>><BR>>-
JLG<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>----- Original Message -----<BR>>From:
"MINDY ZIFFREN-Hall" <mzif-@msn.com><BR>>To:
<NW-@topica.com><BR>>Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:49
PM<BR>>Subject: RE: [NWWC] One of these days...<BR>><BR>><BR>>Good
points, thanks Eric! Now get some sleep and I"ll see ya soon!<BR>>Did we
score other non-road events in this year's 2004 Series into
our<BR>>road<BR>>racing Series?<BR>>I don't think we should include
points for any events outside of a Road<BR>>race. Perhaps I missed this point
if it was included in this year's<BR>>Series.<BR>>I feel strongly though
that this is a Road series.<BR>><BR>>Thanks,<BR>>Mindy<BR>><BR>>
| | From: Eric Lynch <ely-@bigfoot.com><BR>> >Reply-To:
|
NW-@topica.com<BR>> >To: NW-@topica.com<BR>> >Subject:
[NWWC] One of these days...<BR>> >Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:09:22
-0400<BR>> ><BR>> >I will learn to send e-mail properly.<BR>>
| | <BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >Last night I wrote a very lengthy
|
reply to Kirstin's excellent note<BR>>about<BR>> >her efforts tracking
the Cat 4 series and a few concerns that she had.<BR>>This<BR>> >will
be a very abridged version of what I spent much time writing,
and<BR>>to<BR>> >my<BR>> >great surprise appears to have never
been sent. (Read: operator error)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
| | <BR>> >First: Kirstin, many thanks for actig as pointskeeper for the
|
Cat 4<BR>>series<BR>> >for two years. You've done a stellar job
in taking over from Sarah and<BR>> >have<BR>> >made the series
possible for these beginner women. Good luck in your<BR>>future<BR>>
| | project management efforts!<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
Second: Here are the three items I think we should change in the
|
series<BR>> >"rules". I wrote long, long paragraphs on the "why" of my
logic in the<BR>> >"lost" e-mail. These are the short, but hopefully as
effective,<BR>>versions:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
| | 1. Cycling Events Outside the Series: Any cycling event outside of
|
the<BR>> >series that a rider participates in will count as 15 points for
that<BR>>rider.<BR>> >These non-series events must be events that any
Cat 4 rider could<BR>> >participte<BR>> >in as a beginner. Ie: Cat 4
track racing is fine, but Cat 3 is not. The<BR>> >same<BR>> >would
be tru of mountain bike racing: Beginner races count; higer level<BR>>
| | races do not. By this guideline, masters events would not qualify
|
as<BR>>other<BR>> >racers in the senior ranks would not always
qualify.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >2. Stage races: I
agree with Kirstin that we should not "triple score"<BR>> >stage races.
However not everyone does all three stages, so GC placing<BR>>is<BR>>
| | also somewhat biased. I propose that we offer 1/3 of the usuals
|
points<BR>>for<BR>> >each stage in the race (ie: 1st place in any stage
would be worth 33.3<BR>> >poits<BR>> >vs 100 points). A bit of a
pain to score, but more fair to more riders<BR>>in<BR>> >more
situations.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >3. Last minute
changes: As long as we send out regular updates to the<BR>> >series
on nwcycling in '05, I think it would be easy to put a<BR>>reasonable<BR>>
| | deadline by which time we will no longer accept "corrections".
|
Since<BR>>we<BR>> >publish what we have to the listserv, it should be
the riders'<BR>> >responsibilities to verify their data is correct and let
us know in a<BR>> >reasonable time. Both Kirstin and I had people
e-mail at the last<BR>>minute,<BR>> >and some even after the awards
ceremony. So if we set a deadline and<BR>> >publish<BR>> >it, the
riders should be able to work within the time frame we give<BR>>them.
I<BR>> >hope that makes sense, as I am falling asleep as I write
this.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >I also hope my spelling
errors are minimal tonight :-), but that's too<BR>>much<BR>> >to hope
for. We're over-nighting in Montreal before heading to
SF<BR>>tomorrow<BR>> >morning at 6 am (ouch), so I have an excuse
this time.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > See
you next week,<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
| | Eric<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
<BR>><BR>>_________________________________________________________________<BR>>Is
|
your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from
McAfeeR<BR>>Security. <A
href="http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963"
target=_blank>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Express
yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!<BR><A
href="http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/"
------_=_NextPart_001_01C49765.48468A10--
|
|
 |
|
