Something I was thinking about on my lunchtime run…
There are now approximately 273 M-Dot branded 70.3 races around the world. Roughly 5 per weekend…ok, maybe not that many, but there are a lot. And as others have suggested, the ability for each of these races to stage a “quality” pro field is becoming increasingly difficult.
How about the following:
Select a dozen or so of the top 70.3 races as Pro Series events for a points-based series. Only these events would have pro purses or an elite field. Placing in these events counts for points toward an overall Series championship with its own prize purse and the attendant bragging rights. Placing at the World Champs counts for double points or something like that.
Criteria for selection of a race into this Series based on history of the event, locale, course difficulty, timing of the event on the calendar, community support, etc. An example calendar:
Geelong
Oceanside
St. Croix
Switzerland
Hawaii
Eagleman
Buffalo Springs
Vineman
Steelhead
Timberman
Brazil
Monaco
Clearwater
Granted not everyone can do all of these races due to logistics and timing…the idea is that pros could select from this list 6-7 events they would compete in per year. Organizers could even put a limit on races that count toward the series to prevent people from over-racing.
Just an idea…interested to hear pro/cons from the ST braintrust.
The idea is great.
However the ITU pay for it’s athletes to get to locations. Do you think that WTC would do the same? I doubt it.They haven’t raised the Ironman winners money in a long time.
Not that I have a vested interest…I’m merely a member of the rank-and-file full-registration fee paying triathlete public.
I would however be interested to see more races with top-notch fields…the question is could these Pro Series events be marketed to the general public? In other words, would any market other than triathletes care to watch?
As for the other events which would be shut out of this hypothetical series. I personally don’t think they would be hurt. The quality of the pro field is just about last on the list of criteria I look at when considering an event. The things that matter to me are proximity to home, difficulty of course…and that’s about it.
…but that’s just it… maybe not for the races that you yourself want to do but rather… would you not pay attention A WHOLE LOT MORE if there were only 8 events (+1 with kona) and had a shit load of talent at each?
I don’t mean to belittle this, but isn’t it just another way of getting to the point/argument about whether there should be more $$ in triathlon? Granted, you acknowledge that you’d like races where more pros/elites raced. I’d be interested to know if this was a minority or concensus opinion (I think there was a forum poll on it earlier). My point is that, at firsh blush, it appears race organizers would have little, if anything to gain from this. Most of the 273 races you mention sell out in advance. If so, why would RDs want to/feel the need to pay out $$? If it was a way to attract more interest, well, maybe. But with sellouts. more interest isn’t needed. So, what’s the ROI to a RD? Why would they want to do this? Why would they give a rip about it?
I don’t see why people don’t get with the idea of a race series.
The point is, while it’s a slow process, ITU has gained a large amount of popularity of it’s life span than any WTC races have. I mean, it is the ITU style race that is in the olympics, is it not?
It’s not just about getting more money in triathlon, it’s about being smarter with the money that is in the sport.
What if we cut the prize money from all but a few races, give all the prize money to just those few races. You won’t have to have the WTC pay for the competitors to come to the races. With the prize money way higher they will naturally want to come, not to mention it’s the only race that weekend giving out prize money.
I think that even though no one in the city has ever heard the names of any pro triathletes there is still something cool about watching a “pro” in any sport that appeals to the general public.
Why is it ITU style racing in the Olympics? Because the IOC wanted an international organization that all member nation federations belonged to - and that was ITU. WTC was a private company that put on a few races, and licensed out some more, but wasn’t in a position to represent all triathletes.
As for the 70.3s, aren’t most of them just franchisees of the title from WTC? If so, my guess is the individual franchise is required to pony up the pro purse. If you pull the purse from some races, and increase at others, does that mean that 1) those that don’t have a pro purse will feel it denigrates their race, and 2) will those with the increased purse races be able to come up with the additional money?
…but that’s just it… maybe not for the races that you yourself want to do but rather… would you not pay attention A WHOLE LOT MORE if there were only 8 events (+1 with kona) and had a shit load of talent at each?
Absolutely I would pay more attention to the results of a “Pro Series” race with a deep pro field.
The point I was trying to make was that the lack of a pro field will not have a significant impact on race registrations for the non-series races. IMHO. In fact, by relieving RD’s of the need to pay pro prize money, these funds could be diverted into making the race more attractive for the age-groupers. Age group awards (real awards like gear, prize purses, etc), better race swag for participants, etc, etc.
Couple big issues I see…despite my enthusiasm (for my own idea)
Where pro series prize money comes from? A big sponsor…how do they create an ROI, can the series be made marketable enough to attract TV coverage? The Lifetime Fitness series could be a model here.
How does the existence of a 70.3 series get reconciled with full 140.6 events? As it stands now, many athletes race both distances throughout the year. If someone is gunning for the series title, clearly they would not race Kona and then try to peak for the 70.3 World Champs…Would this force athletes to choose a specialty?
There are a few issues with this in my mind. So you would have:
Championship8 point series races15-20? AG Races?I do think that more people would care and watch the races and want to race in them. The AG races that exist would lose participation. Unless there was a reason to race them. While most people do not care or follow the pros they will want to race in the ‘pro’ races. Outside of participation in the AG races what would their draw be? If there are no points to earn and you no longer have the ability to qualify for a championship what is their draw? While it might be great to participate and potentially win, everyone deep down wants something more. The ideal situation would be as follows:
Have the AG races (C-level) for points to qualify to race at the point series (B-level). So qualify in 2009 to be upgraded for 2010. Then have the ability to race at the championship (A-level). It creates a system that more closely mimics cycling. If you choose not to race in 2010 or fail to meet a certain standard, drop back down.
Each year the races could rotate which are C-level vs B-level. Or have each race be equally important as it stands now for Clearwater qualifying, but keep the tiered point system for what category you race in. So you would have PRO, ‘ELITE’, and then AG. More talent development this way.
