Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [sjudice] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From what I understand they will essentially be shut out. My coach raced 2 years ago as a pro and was going to race Lake Placid as a Pro this year. So now he said he will be racing AG for the whole year and try and qualify at a qualifying race (which he will have no trouble doing).

I think they should have announced this earlier if possible. It seems to me a lot of pros plans have been changed as a result of this announcement.
Quote Reply
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The age group rankings are currently based on the top overall amateur/age group time, not the pro's. If you have a deeper field, the top amateur time will be faster not slower. If pros race as amateurs for the purpose of IMLP, this effect will be more pronounced.

I guess it's a double-edged sword - good for folks looking for top competition to measure themselves against, bad for folks who want the best possible USAT ranking.
Quote Reply
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [crmartin9] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Damn, I was afraid of that. I don't know how I will recover from this trauma. I was really counting on that catapult effect. What can I do now? I suppose I could try training.

I have to go get the sponsor solicitations out of the mailbox now.
Last edited by: ajfranke: Dec 1, 04 9:15
Quote Reply
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
No one has mentioned the most important effect of this change. That is the effect on the annual rankings of age groupers. The score for a race is computed using the winning time, among other factors. With no male pros, that will obviously be a slower time.

This change could catapult me from an 80% age grouper up to a 78% age grouper. This is just the break I have been looking for. I'll start lining up sponsors tomorrow.
it's always been calculated using the top age group time, not the top overall time.
Quote Reply
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [brentl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the change only benefits IMNA and that at the end the Pro's will be hurt. Why? Because the Pro's make money from sponsors not from purses therefore the more races we have more IM winners better for the Pro's and their sponsors.
Quote Reply
Re: No men pro's at IMLP? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'd am really curious to understand the the sport, IMNA and WTC from a business perspective.

While people often start with the math of $450 X 2,000 entrants, and complain that there are a lot of "deep pockets" that reamain lined with coins...I haven't seen anyone go into the expense side of things. There sure is a lot of people hours and equipment required to put on an IM race. I don't see a lot of big sponosors around (Kona didn't have a title sponsor this year). Maybe Graeme Frasier makes a decent living, (he should he puts on many great shows) but I don't see a lot of personnel bloat nor do I imagine the saleries are all that huge for others. WTC doesn't seem to have much big expenses either, and certainly they likely didn't pay-up for a national level sports org leader by promoting Ben Fertic from within (no offense to his abilities).

Pro's don't seem to be making very much money and bike shops don't seem to be going into lucrative franchising.

It would seem that there is less money around than many people think and that the people who work in the industry (from vendor reps to pros to RD's) are more in it for their connection and feelings for the sport than to make a substantial living.

As I said, I'd like to understand the expenses of an IM race, and the expenses of a pro vs. their revenues....maybe I'll offer that as a thread...
Quote Reply

Prev Next