Archive for December 5th, 2006
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
OK, ok.
So some took my questions and comments about the Minnesota Cycling Federation to be an attack on the MCF. This was not the case.
I was simply asking some questions about the MCF and its goals. I know that volunteering is a thankless job and those who are on the MCF board are doing a favor for our cycling community. So there is no reason to get defensive when someone asks questions about what’s going on. Just state the facts and be proud of the work you have done.
In addition, I do believe that the MCF needs to do a better job of explaining and promoting its worth to the cycling community. You can work your ass off all year but if no one knows about it then what difference does it make? That’s what I meant when I wrote “The real problem here is that the MCF is not showing that it provides an invaluable service to local clubs and racers.”
A good start would be putting a link on the MCF website that shows the minutes from all past MCF meetings so it would not be necessary to slog through the MCF message board looking for them. The everyone would easily be able to see what is going on at the MCF meetings and get involved if and when they see fit.
Finally, I do think that the MCF is making a mistake by trying to focus on racers, via youth cycling programs and new racer programs, as opposed to races. I strongly believe that individual cyclist introduction and development should be occurring in clubs and the MCF should work towards the goal of race and promoter support at the exclusion of rider development. More races, better races, and more support for race promoters will do more to grow the sport in Minnesota then attempting to develop riders outside the club level.
Think about what got you interested and involved in bicycle racing.
That’s my opinion.
Posted by Smithers at 9:00 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink | 48 Comments »
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
Homme:
My main question is, what value does the MCF provide to a club? Kenwood puts on a really good event and I’m guessing it will still be just as popular even if it isn’t on the MCF calendar next year. This points back to the NVGP issue, with a different twist. For popular races, the MCF calendar adds little to no value to a promoter. Most races already have a website that users can find, there are viral e-mail threads that make their way around the community, and there are countless other message boards and blogs that overlap much of the racers here. If the MCF Calendar is the only thing of real value to a promoter, I would argue the cost of the bureaucracy outweighs the value it provides. And furthermore, without change, more clubs will follow Kenwood model (unless the promoters are pacifists or MCF Patriots).
So maybe we should be having the debate of what value the Minnesota Cycling Federation actually provides to racers and clubs?
Is the MCF getting more youth involved in the sport of cycling? I remember all the hub bub made out of the Youth Cycling League a few years ago and I understand that the YCL still have a fairly sizable amount of MCF cash. But the YCL website has not been updated since 2004 and I don’t recall a YCL event being held in the last few years.
Is the MCF getting more riders in general into the sport of cycling? I know that they have made a push with Start Bike Racing and the Midwest Women’s Cycling Made Real. Are these programs really getting more riders into the sport or are they providing a service to those that are already involved in the sport?
Is the MCF providing officials for local races? My understanding is that when a USA Cycling race permit is approved then USA Cycling has to provide the officials. So the officials have to be provided whether the MCF exists or not. I know that the MCF funds official training so that there is always a readily available pool of officials available for races. But Timmer raises an issue in regards to official training. It appears that the MCF is going to fund a trip out to Colorado Springs so that some local officials can be qualified as motorcycle officials (moto-ref’s). While I think this is a valuable skill to have as an official, I question the value of this skill for MCF races. In looking at the draft MCF calendar for 2007 I see less than 6 races that a moto-ref would even be used, much less being necessary. So why are local racers paying for an official qualification that is not necessary for MCF races? Additionally, will the fact that a local official is qualified to be a moto-ref now require that a moto-ref be present at every road race? How will this affect the bottom line expense to promote a road race?
The real problem here is that the MCF is not showing that it provides an invaluable service to local clubs and racers. If the only real argument that the MCF can make is the organization of the racing calendar then I think they need to do more.
In my opinion, the number one goal of the MCF should be the further expansion of bicycle race promotion in Minnesota. Anything and everything that could be done in order to make a race promoters life easier should be considered. Maybe MCF funds should be used to pay all official expenses in order to remove this burden from race promoters. Maybe funds should be used as a grant to local clubs who put on a certain number of races in order to offset some of the clubs promotion expense.
I am sure that there is a number of things that the MCF can do to facilitate more bike racing. More bike races will mean more bike racers. The sport will grow and, in turn, the MCF will grow along with it. It is not going to do our sport any good to have a group of very highly trained officials and a number of new rider development programs if we do not have sufficient races to participate in.
Feel free to educate me if I asking for something that is already being put into place. If this is the case then the MCF is still not doing a very good job at promoting their value.
Posted by Smithers at 6:29 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink | 66 Comments »
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
OK, ok.
So some took my questions and comments about the Minnesota Cycling Federation to be an attack on the MCF. This was not the case.
I was simply asking some questions about the MCF and its goals. I know that volunteering is a thankless job and those who are on the MCF board are doing a favor for our cycling community. So there is no reason to get defensive when someone asks questions about what’s going on. Just state the facts and be proud of the work you have done.
In addition, I do believe that the MCF needs to do a better job of explaining and promoting its worth to the cycling community. You can work your ass off all year but if no one knows about it then what difference does it make? That’s what I meant when I wrote “The real problem here is that the MCF is not showing that it provides an invaluable service to local clubs and racers.”
A good start would be putting a link on the MCF website that shows the minutes from all past MCF meetings so it would not be necessary to slog through the MCF message board looking for them. The everyone would easily be able to see what is going on at the MCF meetings and get involved if and when they see fit.
Finally, I do think that the MCF is making a mistake by trying to focus on racers, via youth cycling programs and new racer programs, as opposed to races. I strongly believe that individual cyclist introduction and development should be occurring in clubs and the MCF should work towards the goal of race and promoter support at the exclusion of rider development. More races, better races, and more support for race promoters will do more to grow the sport in Minnesota then attempting to develop riders outside the club level.
Think about what got you interested and involved in bicycle racing.
That’s my opinion.
Posted by Smithers at 3:00 pm in Local Cycling | Permalink | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
Super Rookie reports on the MCF meeting last night:
Kenwood was denied its request of hosting the State Cross Championships. This is because Kenwood refused to pay the MCF surcharge of $1 per rider. For a total of +/- $225. This is complete crap and I have lost all respect for Kenwood. The race was listed on the MCF calendar and the MCF sanctioned it as the State Championships through the USAC.
The fact that Kenwood has the gall to promote a race and utilize the MCF calendar and not pay the surcharge! Says a lot if you ask me.
What he fails to point out is the fact that all of the proceeds for races held at Bassett Creek park go to help pay for youth activities in the City of Crystal. This donation is the only way a course like Bassett Creek can be utilized.
In this situation the MCF rider surcharge is not just a portion of the proceeds of the race, it is an additional expense that is put on the back of already over worked race promoters. In addition, Kenwood Cycling, the promoting club, has a small membership as compared to many other clubs in the area and has no club sponsorship.
As far as I am concerned, Kenwood is doing more for the racing community than the MCF was doing for Kenwood in putting the State Championship event on their calendar.
I think some accommodation needs to be considered on the part of the MCF for small clubs that are hosting events where any race proceeds are appropriated as a condition for permitting the event to take place. Especially if those race proceeds are going to a good cause.
The alternative will be the same clubs hosting the same events on the same courses year after year after year. I acknowledge that Bassett Creek is one of those “same courses” but it seems like this is a pretty popular event.
It’s too bad that a hard line taken by the MCF may do nothing but punish local racers.
Posted by Smithers at 2:21 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink | 72 Comments »
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
Homme:
My main question is, what value does the MCF provide to a club? Kenwood puts on a really good event and I’m guessing it will still be just as popular even if it isn’t on the MCF calendar next year. This points back to the NVGP issue, with a different twist. For popular races, the MCF calendar adds little to no value to a promoter. Most races already have a website that users can find, there are viral e-mail threads that make their way around the community, and there are countless other message boards and blogs that overlap much of the racers here. If the MCF Calendar is the only thing of real value to a promoter, I would argue the cost of the bureaucracy outweighs the value it provides. And furthermore, without change, more clubs will follow Kenwood model (unless the promoters are pacifists or MCF Patriots).
So maybe we should be having the debate of what value the Minnesota Cycling Federation actually provides to racers and clubs?
Is the MCF getting more youth involved in the sport of cycling? I remember all the hub bub made out of the Youth Cycling League a few years ago and I understand that the YCL still have a fairly sizable amount of MCF cash. But the YCL website has not been updated since 2004 and I don’t recall a YCL event being held in the last few years.
Is the MCF getting more riders in general into the sport of cycling? I know that they have made a push with Start Bike Racing and the Midwest Women’s Cycling Made Real. Are these programs really getting more riders into the sport or are they providing a service to those that are already involved in the sport?
Is the MCF providing officials for local races? My understanding is that when a USA Cycling race permit is approved then USA Cycling has to provide the officials. So the officials have to be provided whether the MCF exists or not. I know that the MCF funds official training so that there is always a readily available pool of officials available for races. But Timmer raises an issue in regards to official training. It appears that the MCF is going to fund a trip out to Colorado Springs so that some local officials can be qualified as motorcycle officials (moto-ref’s). While I think this is a valuable skill to have as an official, I question the value of this skill for MCF races. In looking at the draft MCF calendar for 2007 I see less than 6 races that a moto-ref would even be used, much less being necessary. So why are local racers paying for an official qualification that is not necessary for MCF races? Additionally, will the fact that a local official is qualified to be a moto-ref now require that a moto-ref be present at every road race? How will this affect the bottom line expense to promote a road race?
The real problem here is that the MCF is not showing that it provides an invaluable service to local clubs and racers. If the only real argument that the MCF can make is the organization of the racing calendar then I think they need to do more.
In my opinion, the number one goal of the MCF should be the further expansion of bicycle race promotion in Minnesota. Anything and everything that could be done in order to make a race promoters life easier should be considered. Maybe MCF funds should be used to pay all official expenses in order to remove this burden from race promoters. Maybe funds should be used as a grant to local clubs who put on a certain number of races in order to offset some of the clubs promotion expense.
I am sure that there is a number of things that the MCF can do to facilitate more bike racing. More bike races will mean more bike racers. The sport will grow and, in turn, the MCF will grow along with it. It is not going to do our sport any good to have a group of very highly trained officials and a number of new rider development programs if we do not have sufficient races to participate in.
Feel free to educate me if I asking for something that is already being put into place. If this is the case then the MCF is still not doing a very good job at promoting their value.
Posted by Smithers at 12:29 pm in Local Cycling | Permalink | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
Super Rookie
reports on the MCF meeting last night:
Kenwood was denied its request of hosting the State Cross Championships. This is because Kenwood refused to pay the MCF surcharge of $1 per rider. For a total of +/- $225. This is complete crap and I have lost all respect for Kenwood. The race was listed on the MCF calendar and the MCF sanctioned it as the State Championships through the USAC.
The fact that Kenwood has the gall to promote a race and utilize the MCF calendar and not pay the surcharge! Says a lot if you ask me.
What he fails to point out is the fact that all of the proceeds for races held at Bassett Creek park go to help pay for youth activities in the City of Crystal. This donation is the only way a course like Bassett Creek can be utilized.
In this situation the MCF rider surcharge is not just a portion of the proceeds of the race, it is an additional expense that is put on the back of already over worked race promoters. In addition, Kenwood Cycling, the promoting club, has a small membership as compared to many other clubs in the area and has no club sponsorship.
As far as I am concerned, Kenwood is doing more for the racing community than the MCF was doing for Kenwood in putting the State Championship event on their calendar.
I think some accommodation needs to be considered on the part of the MCF for small clubs that are hosting events where any race proceeds are appropriated as a condition for permitting the event to take place. Especially if those race proceeds are going to a good cause.
The alternative will be the same clubs hosting the same events on the same courses year after year after year. I acknowledge that Bassett Creek is one of those “same courses” but it seems like this is a pretty popular event.
It’s too bad that a hard line taken by the MCF may do nothing but punish local racers.
Posted by Smithers at 8:21 am in Local Cycling | Permalink | 2 Comments »
