One Ghost
Posts: 14
Joined: 8/1/2009
Location: Portland, OR USA
maximumradness wrote: its easy to say fad.
i understand that.
lets look at the whole of this sport and see where there is potential growth.
both in exposure and sales, and culture, and marketability.
its the dh, the slopestyle, and the enduro.
rather than live in the olympic committee dictated present, lets look forward.
USAC is not doing that. their actions are dictated by the money that flows to them.
our actions are dictated by the love of MTB.
it only makes sense for us to drive hard in the direction we wish to see our sport take.
its not a bash to the USAC,
Its a call to action for regional race promoters, dh racers, dual slalom course builders,
and the mtv, espn, sports media.
we want fun, exciting, relevant, competitive, progressive and accesible racing and competition.
we are going somewhere new, fresh, young and profitable.
whos in!?
Count us in as one manufacturer!
I've lost complete confidence in USAC over the past few years.
There are now fewer MTB races and almost zero nationals coming through town any longer and they have been shrinking every since NORBA left town. So from a financial perspective I'm getting less 'bang for my buck', or $60 to be exact, just in the number of events that $60 can be spread out over.
Those few events still functioning are for the most part the same old hat with almost no change from the promoters to update them and bring them in line with today's athlete and technology. Granted, this isn't any fault (that I can see) of USAC but I'm still obligated to purchase a USAC license if I want to race CAT1 or PRO.
But this isn't just a USAC issue, the UCI is riddled with problems including the new cyclocross VERGE and NACT races here in the US that may be banned because, of all things, they hold more races than the prescribed 8 race max rule (how nice would that be in MTB'ing?).
Obviously the only real solution I can see is if A. Another entity steps up and somehow offers to compete with USAC, which in most cases would probably end in financial ruin. B. Promoters somehow working directly with venue's (resorts, ect...) and piggy backing off their liability insurance. Much like if you were to buy a lift pass. However, this may result in higher entry fee's, etc...
I will throw this question/thought out though; The US has rules on holding a monopoly with a few exceptions, like power companies which can be heavily regulated. Has USAC managed to fly beneath the radar on this issue or are they exempt in some manner? For example, to cut down on confusion there can really only be one regulating body to choose athletes for the Olympics/World Championships. However, that doesn't mean that another organization can't exist to provide the other services USAC offers to those athletes/events that would have no bearing on the Olympics/World Championships.
bstens
Posts: 27
Joined: 3/29/2010
Location: Nw, WA USA
I don't want assume here but isn't USAC a non-profit "government" entity. Which in that case means they can certainly provide a monopoly? That's besides the point.
bstens wrote: I don't want assume here but isn't USAC a non-profit "government" entity. Which in that case means they can certainly provide a monopoly? That's besides the point.
I don't know the answer to that question, but I would assume the opposite; That it is not a 'government' entity. Similarly to how the US Post Office is a private company and 'the Fed' is a clongomeration of banks who service the government by regulating certain aspects of the economy and setting policy.
The point being that just because a name has 'USA' in it, doesn't necessarily mean government.
Regardless, it's a good question.
KHSFactoryRacing
Posts: 12
Joined: 10/24/2009
Location: Rancho Dominguez, CA USA
bike4christ wrote: dudes - not sure why all the bashing of USAC? Speaking solely from a business point of view, it just makes sense to cater their product to meet the needs of the majority of their members. Of course they concentrate their resources on on the true discipline of MTB racing - namely XC.
I know this fact will make people angry, but DH and AM are still in the 'fad' stage of their growth. Yes, they are fun! But they are are a distinct minority of the membership. One thing can be said of USAC - they knows their bidness model!
DH a FAD! Have you ever watched a live World Cup broadcast on Freecaster.tv!! When 400, 000 plus people visit Fort William in 2010 to watch World Cup racing... who and what do you think they paid to come and see?? It was no the XC my friend - NOT THE XC!!
amado
Posts: 3
Joined: 9/4/2009
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
lets all remember,
NORBA HATES YOU
We don't need another NORBA, we need a governing body that actually cares about gravity racing.
we can all start by supporting our local scene and growing series such as the Pro GRT
NORBA HATES YOU
We're doing it here in Utah, but with our own bit of flavor: BikeDerby.
Wow, these Vital Forums load funny and clicking on the 'Link' link throws the browser to the top of the page. Oh well, here it is in non-link form:
http://www.slchumdingerderby.blogspot.com/
Hmmm.... I'm still getting errors galore here. Quote links don't work. Oh well.
Link tab seems to be working now though, let's try this again:
SLC Bike Derby.
amado wrote: lets all remember, NORBA HATES YOU
We don't need another NORBA, we need a governing body that actually cares about gravity racing.
we can all start by supporting our local scene and growing series such as the Pro GRT
NORBA HATES YOU
This is what need to be done. The GRT is the first shot fired into the "we'll do it ourselves". A guy got sick of there being no national series so he went and made one. Yes USAC is still involved, but for the most part it's a notional series built by a rider for his fellow riders. So we need to support him and his series and WE will make it grow. I have put together a 12 rider squad this year for Santa Cruz that will attend most GRT races and my local race series at Northstar. Use USAC for insurance reasons and UCI points and that's it. Don't give them another cent!
