OBRA: OBRA Chat: another mtn bike response

another mtn bike response

← Newer
OBRA Chat
Older →

Mike Murray

2004-10-08

Greg Bruce [mailto:Greg_-@pfm.org] questions and suggests:

"What could be some of the causes of poor attendance?

It is possible that having 3 series instead of one contributed to a lack of

attendance. Someone would have to look at historical data to determine if

attendance was significantly better prior to the "3 series format". Is it

just cyclical? Cross Country racing may be down everywhere, Road Racing and

Cyclocross are the current rage.

What else is currently the rage? 12 and 24 hour events? Marathon events?

My opinion is that we would be better off with one race series at the 5-7

most highly attended races/locations (from a historical perspective) and

that we should have a "one off" State Championship that is separate from the

series itself. Much like what took place this year with the NORBA series and

then a "National Championship Race" that took place at Mammoth. So, you

would have an OBRA Series Champion and you would have an Oregon State

Champion.

I also think we should follow the national lead and have a Cross Country

series for those interested in shorter distance, high intensity, high speed

events and a Marathon Series for those interested in longer distance, lower

intensity, endurance events (50-70 miles). Attendance at marathon events is

growing leaps and bounds."

I feel compelled to point out, much the same as with the scheduling issue,

this is not a planned process, nor should it be. OBRA is not in the

position of limiting the number of races, limiting the number of series, or

mandating that certain types of races be held. What happens is people come

to OBRA because they wish to put on a bike race and they want the services

that OBRA offers. Assuming that they meet the requirements that OBRA has

for doing business with them we provide them with those services. Although

it would make sense that the value of individual events could be increased

by limiting the number of events, it does not really make much sense for

OBRA to limit bike races so that we can have fewer, better bike races does

it? In fact, it would probably put OBRA at risk for charges of restraint of

trade. Currently the thing that limits the number of bike races is whether

the people putting them on feel that they will attract enough riders to meet

their goals. Basically this is a free market system. If people wish to put

on bike races, they do. If they wish to cooperate together to join those

races into series, they do. Combining races together in a series does

increase the value of the individual races in the series but more having

more series diminishes that effect. Riders get to decide if they want to go

to those races. If there are enough riders there will be more races and if

not then there will be fewer races.

Mike Murray

cmur-@obra.org

2004-10-08

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C4AD28.5DDF0310

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

From: Greg Bruce [mailto:Greg_-@pfm.org]

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:37 AM

To: cmur-@obra.org

It is my response to the MTB attendance issue- maybe you can post it or just

keep it for your information:

Candi and Topica members,

I think we have two separate issues here.

Issue #1- Based on the attendance (or lack thereof) at this year?s MTB

races, do we have too many categories?

Probable Answer: Yes?If there is not sufficient enough attendance to have

15-20+ riders in a category, it would probably be in everyone?s interest to

reduce the number of categories.

Issue #2- Why are the MTB races so poorly attended?

Response: I don?t think the categories themselves have anything to do with

attendance. As stated above, categories should be looked at if attendance

continues to be small, but I don?t see it as a cause or cure to the

attendance problem itself.

What could be some of the causes of poor attendance?

It is possible that having 3 series instead of one contributed to a lack of

attendance. Someone would have to look at historical data to determine if

attendance was significantly better prior to the ?3 series format?. Is it

just cyclical? Cross Country racing may be down everywhere, Road Racing and

Cyclocross are the current rage.

What else is currently the rage? 12 and 24 hour events? Marathon events?

My opinion is that we would be better off with one race series at the 5-7

most highly attended races/locations (from a historical perspective) and

that we should have a ?one off? State Championship that is separate from the

series itself. Much like what took place this year with the NORBA series and

then a ?National Championship Race? that took place at Mammoth. So, you

would have an OBRA Series Champion and you would have an Oregon State

Champion.

I also think we should follow the national lead and have a Cross Country

series for those interested in shorter distance, high intensity, high speed

events and a Marathon Series for those interested in longer distance, lower

intensity, endurance events (50-70 miles). Attendance at marathon events is

growing leaps and bounds.

Again, I think categories should be a response to attendance. If attendance

is excessively high, create additional categories to respond to that.

However, it would be initially better to start out with a smaller and more

streamlined category list.

Also, the reason I say 5-7 races or locations is for the same rationale as

the ?category issue?. If you already have poor attendance, you do not want

to spread your ?attendance pool? out over a broader scale. Reduce the number

of events and series and create in them a ?must attend? atmosphere.

Last but not least, the cost of MTB races and the punitive late entry fee

penalty need to be changed. I know lots of people that need the flexibility

of making a decision on racing a particular weekend at the last minute and

then to have to consider a $35 entry fee, plus a $10 late fee, plus the gas

and time to get what may be ? way across the state is enough to just say. ?I

guess I won?t go.?

Thanks

Greg

---------------------

Dr. Greg Bruce

Bend, OR

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/2004

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/2004

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C4AD28.5DDF0310

Content-Type: text/html;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!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>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>

<STYLE>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }

P.MsoNormal {

FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"

}

LI.MsoNormal {

FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"

}

DIV.MsoNormal {

FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"

}

A:link {

COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline

}

SPAN.MsoHyperlink {

COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline

}

A:visited {

COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline

}

SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {

COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline

}

SPAN.emailstyle17 {

COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial

}

SPAN.EmailStyle18 {

COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial

}

DIV.Section1 {

page: Section1

}

</STYLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue>

<DIV> From: Greg Bruce

[mailto:Greg_-@pfm.org] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:37

AM To: cmur-@obra.org </DIV>

<DIV class=Section1>

It is my response to the MTB

attendance issue- maybe you can post

it or just keep it for your information:

 

Candi and Topica

members,

 

I think we have two separate issues

here.

 

Issue #1- Based on the attendance

(or lack thereof) at this year’s MTB races, do we have too many

categories?

Probable Answer: Yes—If there is not

sufficient enough attendance to have 15-20+ riders in a category, it would

probably be in everyone’s interest to reduce the number of

categories.

 

Issue #2- Why are the MTB races so

poorly attended?

Response: I don’t think the

categories themselves have anything to do with attendance. As stated above,

categories should be looked at if attendance continues to be small, but I don’t

see it as a cause or cure to the attendance problem itself.

 

What could be some of the causes of

poor attendance? 

It is possible that having 3 series

instead of one contributed to a lack of attendance. Someone would have to look

at historical data to determine if attendance was significantly better prior to

the “3 series format”. Is it just cyclical? Cross Country racing may be down

everywhere, Road Racing and Cyclocross are the current rage.

What else is currently the rage? 12

and 24 hour events? Marathon

events?

 

My opinion is that we would be

better off with one race series at the 5-7 most highly attended races/locations

(from a historical perspective) and that we should have a “one off” State

Championship that is separate from the series itself. Much like what took place

this year with the NORBA series and then a “National Championship Race” that

took place at Mammoth. So, you would have an OBRA Series Champion and you would

have an Oregon State Champion.

 

I also think we should follow the

national lead and have a Cross Country series for those interested in shorter

distance, high intensity, high speed events and a Marathon Series for those

interested in longer distance, lower intensity, endurance events (50-70 miles).

Attendance at marathon events is growing leaps and bounds.

 

Again, I think categories should be

a response to attendance. If attendance is excessively high, create additional

categories to respond to that. However, it would be initially better to start

out with a smaller and more streamlined category list.

 

Also, the reason I say 5-7 races or

locations is for the same rationale as the “category issue”. If you already have

poor attendance, you do not want to spread your “attendance pool” out over a

broader scale. Reduce the number of events and series and create in them a “must

attend” atmosphere. 

 

Last but not least, the cost of MTB

races and the punitive late entry fee penalty need to be changed. I know lots of

people that need the flexibility of making a decision on racing a particular

weekend at the last minute and then to have to consider a $35 entry fee, plus a

$10 late fee, plus the gas and time to get what may be ? way across the state is

enough to just say. “I guess I won’t go.”

 

Thanks

 

Greg

 

---------------------

Dr. Greg Bruce

Bend, OR

 </DIV> 

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG

anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.767 / Virus

Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/2004 

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG

anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.767 / Virus

Database: 514 - Release Date: 9/21/2004 </BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C4AD28.5DDF0310--

← Newer
OBRA Chat
Older →