#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
In article .com,
Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. Also since there are a lot of problems with the ranking system in general many people dont are about the rankings. For example Ranking points for a race is basd in part on the number of reported finishers. If you have a very hard race that started with a feld of 100 riders but only about 10 finished then that race will be worth less ranking points than an easy race that starts out with 75 riders and ends with 65 finishers who get reported in the results. Likewise if the promoter /officials have a problem reporting full results ( like a camera malfunction ) again the race is pretty useless in terms of points earned. The USAC ranking system doesn't recognize categorized masters racing. A 35+ 4/5 race is trreated either the same as a 35+ 1/2/3 event or the same as an elite 3/4 event depending on how the 35+ 4/5 race is reported. The ranking system doesn't recognize 35+, 45+ and 55+ events the same as it does 30+ 40+ and 50+ events. The master groups that end in 0s get more ranking points then the events that end in 5s Most riders tend to care more about their own regional ranking programs since those are the riders they actually race against on a regular basis. Most of the Nor Cal results that get reported to USAC do so because promoters give me a spreadsheet with the basic Info and then when I have the time I format it ( and deal with Lic # or name typos) and upload it to USAC. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
This is part of why NEBRA decided to start our own "ranking system",
similar to other regions' BAR, etc. We didn't understand the USAC ranking process at first; nobody had a PhD in Theoretical Statistics. We felt that we could provide a much better, and more accurate service to the riders of New England by creating our own. As such, we have a bit better control of the results, both through the promoter, but mostly through the timing service that our races are required to use. Our "ranking system" czar (paid position) works with the promoters and the results/timing services to help ensure consistency and quick turnaround. As the last point of control, our adminstrator (also a paid position) intercedes and helps get results to Colo Sprgs. At last year's LA Summit meeting, this was discussed. But as each region has its own desires (35+/45+/55+ vs 30+/40+/50+ for example), any unifying system would be difficult, except in the Category fields. I'm sure it will be discussed again at this year's meeting. Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. Also since there are a lot of problems with the ranking system in general many people dont are about the rankings. For example Ranking points for a race is basd in part on the number of reported finishers. If you have a very hard race that started with a feld of 100 riders but only about 10 finished then that race will be worth less ranking points than an easy race that starts out with 75 riders and ends with 65 finishers who get reported in the results. Likewise if the promoter /officials have a problem reporting full results ( like a camera malfunction ) again the race is pretty useless in terms of points earned. The USAC ranking system doesn't recognize categorized masters racing. A 35+ 4/5 race is trreated either the same as a 35+ 1/2/3 event or the same as an elite 3/4 event depending on how the 35+ 4/5 race is reported. The ranking system doesn't recognize 35+, 45+ and 55+ events the same as it does 30+ 40+ and 50+ events. The master groups that end in 0s get more ranking points then the events that end in 5s Most riders tend to care more about their own regional ranking programs since those are the riders they actually race against on a regular basis. Most of the Nor Cal results that get reported to USAC do so because promoters give me a spreadsheet with the basic Info and then when I have the time I format it ( and deal with Lic # or name typos) and upload it to USAC. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
"Agree to submit race results" doesn't necessarily mean
electronically. The insurance rebate was 50 cents per and that disappeared 4 or 5 years ago. I would suggest that only cat 1/2 results matter for a national ranking system. NRC races are required to submit results asap. Until USAC supplies the same software that can export the needed files to all promoters and requires its use the national ranking system will never be worth while. At a recent UCI race in the USA I noticed half the pros had their USCF license numbers listed on the start sheets instead of their UCI numbers. As long as the top riders carry multiple licenses (against the rules) trying to match up the many thousands of results will be incorrect anyhow and the rankings will be wrong. The top riders don't care. The promoters don't care. yeahyeah wrote: alan_atwood wrote: The rebate may be gone, but the requirement exists. You have to sign this agreement to get a permit (although the phrase "action /may/ be taken" gives a bit of wiggle room): Event Promoters * Agree to submit race results in the 21 days following the conclusion of the event. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. And it requires more than cutting and pasting results -- our officials do not include license numbers on results sheets, so finding the information required by USAC for each finisher may mean wading through 300 on-site applications. Which ain't gonna happen. Kathleen |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
"kgleason" wrote in message ups.com... Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. And it requires more than cutting and pasting results -- our officials do not include license numbers on results sheets, so finding the information required by USAC for each finisher may mean wading through 300 on-site applications. Which ain't gonna happen. It sounds like a complete pain in the butt but I don't understand why the promoters don't modify their data recording systems to capture the information that USAC requires. If you know in advance what they are looking for it seems that you could do it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
Frank Drackman wrote: "kgleason" wrote in message ups.com... Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. And it requires more than cutting and pasting results -- our officials do not include license numbers on results sheets, so finding the information required by USAC for each finisher may mean wading through 300 on-site applications. Which ain't gonna happen. It sounds like a complete pain in the butt but I don't understand why the promoters don't modify their data recording systems to capture the information that USAC requires. If you know in advance what they are looking for it seems that you could do it. In our case, we didn't know in advance -- the results thing is completely separate from permitting. I only learned about the results reporting thing when I got angry emails from racers. Don't know if this ignorance is my fault or that of USAC; that question is only relevant at this point if USAC is not doing a good enough job letting promoters know about the "service." Next year we will make sure license numbers in particular get on day-of registration sheets. Even with this, though, it requires more than cut and paste in the case of the race my club promotes because our "data recording system" for day-of registration is pen and paper. Not the biggest deal in the world, but not automatic. Although I don't really care who is the fifth-ranked fourth-tier racer in the US, I can appreciate that there are some who do. Kathleen |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
"kgleason" wrote in message oups.com... Frank Drackman wrote: "kgleason" wrote in message ups.com... Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. And it requires more than cutting and pasting results -- our officials do not include license numbers on results sheets, so finding the information required by USAC for each finisher may mean wading through 300 on-site applications. Which ain't gonna happen. It sounds like a complete pain in the butt but I don't understand why the promoters don't modify their data recording systems to capture the information that USAC requires. If you know in advance what they are looking for it seems that you could do it. In our case, we didn't know in advance -- the results thing is completely separate from permitting. I only learned about the results reporting thing when I got angry emails from racers. Don't know if this ignorance is my fault or that of USAC; that question is only relevant at this point if USAC is not doing a good enough job letting promoters know about the "service." Next year we will make sure license numbers in particular get on day-of registration sheets. Even with this, though, it requires more than cut and paste in the case of the race my club promotes because our "data recording system" for day-of registration is pen and paper. Not the biggest deal in the world, but not automatic. Although I don't really care who is the fifth-ranked fourth-tier racer in the US, I can appreciate that there are some who do. Kathleen Now I understand, thanks for the response. I sometimes help out on the scoring at a weekly training race and the biggest complaint from racers is the lack of posted results. It drives some people totally bonkers. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
Frank Drackman wrote: "kgleason" wrote in message oups.com... Frank Drackman wrote: "kgleason" wrote in message ups.com... Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article .com, Bill C wrote: wrote: What is with promoters not submitting results to USA Cycling?! Of the over twenty times I have raced this year, two of the races have submitted results to USA Cycling. Seriously, WTF. MGA Proving Grounds Superweek Road Race hasn't submitted a result at all in all the records on the USA Cycling webpage, which goes back to 1999. Isn't this required? Who is at fault in this? Are people so sick of the task of promoting the race that as soon as it is over they need a break, and then never get back to it? It's definitely a problem, not sure how Casey is dealing with it but Nebra is really leaning on promoters to submit the results both to them and USAC. This should be a simple slam dunk, and is if the promoter uses a reliable results/timing company who sends this stuff in as part of their service. Bill C Most promoters don't submit results to USAC because it is a pain in the backside ( and it takes time) to reformat the results into the format the USAC requires. There is a specific format that requires 16 columns of information. some of the information the promtoer ( or who ever is doing the results) needs to be able to look up like the event permit numbr. Also you have to use the specific category names or else the category doesn't count in the national rankings. And it requires more than cutting and pasting results -- our officials do not include license numbers on results sheets, so finding the information required by USAC for each finisher may mean wading through 300 on-site applications. Which ain't gonna happen. It sounds like a complete pain in the butt but I don't understand why the promoters don't modify their data recording systems to capture the information that USAC requires. If you know in advance what they are looking for it seems that you could do it. In our case, we didn't know in advance -- the results thing is completely separate from permitting. I only learned about the results reporting thing when I got angry emails from racers. Don't know if this ignorance is my fault or that of USAC; that question is only relevant at this point if USAC is not doing a good enough job letting promoters know about the "service." Next year we will make sure license numbers in particular get on day-of registration sheets. Even with this, though, it requires more than cut and paste in the case of the race my club promotes because our "data recording system" for day-of registration is pen and paper. Not the biggest deal in the world, but not automatic. Although I don't really care who is the fifth-ranked fourth-tier racer in the US, I can appreciate that there are some who do. Kathleen Now I understand, thanks for the response. I sometimes help out on the scoring at a weekly training race and the biggest complaint from racers is the lack of posted results. It drives some people totally bonkers. Which is why I spend time immediately after our event getting results to our web master, even though I am completely fried at that point; I understand how the Internet has changed expectations (used to have to wait for the regional reports in the next Velonews). Our results have always been posted on our web site by first thing the next morning at the latest. As I said earlier, the USAC thing was virtually impossible without pre-planning because the information required by the USAC was not readily available -- even though we did post the results on the web in a more than timely fashion. Kathleen |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Lazy promoters?
FWIW....they aren't carrying multiple licenses; the USAC international
license carries their USAC number as well as the UCI number. It's the fault of the registrar that the domestic numbers appear on the registration form. Alan wrote: "Agree to submit race results" doesn't necessarily mean electronically. The insurance rebate was 50 cents per and that disappeared 4 or 5 years ago. I would suggest that only cat 1/2 results matter for a national ranking system. NRC races are required to submit results asap. Until USAC supplies the same software that can export the needed files to all promoters and requires its use the national ranking system will never be worth while. At a recent UCI race in the USA I noticed half the pros had their USCF license numbers listed on the start sheets instead of their UCI numbers. As long as the top riders carry multiple licenses (against the rules) trying to match up the many thousands of results will be incorrect anyhow and the rankings will be wrong. The top riders don't care. The promoters don't care. yeahyeah wrote: alan_atwood wrote: The rebate may be gone, but the requirement exists. You have to sign this agreement to get a permit (although the phrase "action /may/ be taken" gives a bit of wiggle room): Event Promoters * Agree to submit race results in the 21 days following the conclusion of the event. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
not tactics just lazy | Bounty Bob | Racing | 18 | July 22nd 06 05:36 PM |
RR: Lazy Sunday morning ride | SuzieB | Australia | 4 | November 7th 05 01:35 AM |
Gears making me lazy? | EuanB | Australia | 17 | August 18th 05 04:10 AM |
Do you ever get lazy? | B.B. | Techniques | 34 | January 5th 05 08:47 PM |
Sick, Lame and Lazy | GILD | Unicycling | 9 | September 10th 03 09:42 AM |