HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: polly@grover.Stanford.EDU (Polly Siegel)
Subject: Re: Collegiate Cycling - Qualifying for Nationals
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:44:01 GMT

97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.023856.3397@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> polly@grover.Stanford.EDU (Polly Siegel) writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan19.212425.27855@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
> >> ... Men and women do not race together so why should they effect the
> >> ability for one team to go to nationals or not?
> >
> >By that token, why should there be different categories for men or women
> >then?  They don't race together either, yet it's the sum of the points in
> >the categories that affect who goes to Nationals.
> > 
> So, by the same token, you would allow me to shoe up with 30 B riders and glut
> the field? Hey you can get 30 too!! In the NWCCC the B riders to not impact
> the qualification for nationals.

In the WCCC, points from all categories affect qualifications to
Nationals... so our perspectives probably differ in part based on these
rules.  (There is also a limit as to how many riders you can enter in each
category for obvious reasons of fairness.)

- polly

-- 
-------
Polly Siegel
Center for Integrated Systems
(polly@grover.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Do we care about racing collegiate?
Organization: SYSTEMS & COMPUTING
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 01:00:52 PST

In article <C1FL3z.Jr4@rice.edu>
garrick@owlnet.rice.edu (Garrick F. Mitchell) writes:
 
>In article <1993Jan25.003358.19725@athena.mit.edu>, jesnow@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E Snow) writes:
>|>
>|> The person who is primarily disadvantaged by the current [points]
>|> system is the Cat. II rider who just wants to go to Collegiate Nats
>|> and doesn't care to associate himself with lower life forms.  We
>|> can do without this guy.
>
>Within the past couple of seasons the South Central Conference dealt
>with the question of whether the winner of the conf. championship RR
>should qualify for Nat's along with the individual season-long points
>champion (as opposed to the top two total points getters not on
>qualifying teams).  If I remember correctly, this proposal was made
>by a big school with a lot of Cat II's who, due to sponsorship duties,
>had to miss a lot of regular season collegiate races in order to do
>big-money Pro-I-II crits.
>
>These riders wanted to be able to get a ticket to Nat's
>by showing up and kicking butt at ONE collegiate race while not having
>anything to do with the conference the rest of the year.  Meanwhile,
>it seems a progressively smaller and smaller "hard core" of riders
>consistently support collegiate racing by going to collegiate races.
>
>The above-mentioned motion didn't pass.  During debate on this issue,
>however, it seemed that some people viewed collegiate racing merely as "something to do" when there isn't a USCF race in town.
>
>It seems to me this could be almost as grave an issue for collegiate racing
>as the ongoing shortage of women racers (both collegiate and otherwise).
>Is collegiate racing an end in itself or merely an alternative?  Clearly,
>it is what WE make it...
>
 
I would agree with the descension on that issue. I too am against one shot
racers. Its kinda like Tomac doing half a mountain bike season and winning
the double points Grundig race and being the overall winner.
 
I do think, however, that we need to look at the NCCA as a feeder program
for cycling. Collegiate cycling could never be the end all of cycling.
Unless you are a career student. I think that collegiate cycling needs
to realize its role and try not to conflict with HUGE USCF races. I am not
talking about weekly training races here, I mean big races. Every year there
is a school in our conference that schedlues a race the same time as
the tour de willamette, and every year the conference votes to not count
that race. We see Collegiate Cycling as supplemental. Worthy of every effort
and a a pure sport, no money no fame just pure competition. But, we also
realize that (for some ok for VERY FEW) USCF races help pay some of the
day to day cycling bills. (ok for very very very few) (hehehhee!!)
 
--
Patrick David Walters                     President WSU Cycling Club
97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu                Race Dircetor WSU Stage Race
Undergrad Soc Minor in Fren and Bus         Send Mail for more info on
Washington State University   Pullman, WA   either !
From: mike@scimitar.cchem.berkeley.edu (C. Michael McCallum)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Collegiate Cycling - Qualifying for Nationals
Date: 26 Jan 1993 16:41:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: scimitar.cchem.berkeley.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu wrote:
: Ok so let's follwo this logic to the absurd a little I goto HUGE Univ
: and I can field 10 men's teams and 8 women's teams at 5 people each.
: Therefore, we should have a category so everyone can race and they should
: count for qualifications. so the theoury he who fileds the most riders wins!
:  

Um, I don't really get your point, since you say this is to the absurd.

Polly is saying that, in our conference, each classification, Men's
A-D and women's A&B, contribute to overall day points.  There is also 
a per-race team limit of 10 riders.  Basically, then, a woman's
A race is no different than a Men's C's race, at least in terms
of the team.  Even with a limit of ten per race, many teams like Cal
and Stanford and Davis have more racers than spots availible.  This is
life.  The practical limit is more like five racers, since the race
field limit is usually 60.

Just because someone has ten riders in a given race doesn't mean they
will win.  Spots are given out equally per team, until the 60 limit is
filled.  Any left overs go to teams with more riders, one team at a time.
You would be hard-pressed to convince me, or anyone out here, I suspect,
that there are more than 5 riders on any A,B,C or D team that will/can
win that race.  The lower classes (C,D) usually fill up, and so a team
like Cal may put 10 D riders into a race, but then again D points are 
worth about 1/5 as much as B points even.

--Mike

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: SYSTEMS & COMPUTING
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 00:37:57 PST

In article <1993Jan26.174445.12732@leland.Stanford.EDU>
polly@grover.Stanford.EDU (Polly Siegel) writes:
 
>
>As someone else pointed out, in the WCCC we have Mens A,B,C,D and Womens
>A&B...  We also have rules as to who can be in what category (based on
>their USCF classification) and rules preventing people from downgrading to
>lower categories (sandbagging) during the middle of the season.
>
>I didn't realize prior to this discussion how different the rules were
>amongst the conferences.
>
>> ...
>>
>> I disagree, the reason why points are awarded on a graduated scale is that
>> not every school is big enough to field an A B and C team. They basically
>> devalue the lower Cats. I can understand this within the one sex, but then
>> we further devalue women?? Come on! Let women have there own race and
>> acknowledge that they can do something without a man to help them!
>
>The point scale is structured such that you're going to put your best
>riders in the category that scores the most points.  Women do have their
>own races in our conference and their point totals go towards the overall
>team score.  I don't think any women on our team were unhappy about that,
>given that we contribute a lot to our team's success.
>
>- polly
Please justify to me the idea of devaluing the women's team. There are schools
who have very few women and they can still survive (WSU is one of them) But,
in schools where the women's team is dominate they are crippled by not having
an adequate men's team. Do you see my point here? It doesn't hurt you to
not have women as much as it does to not have men. That is total inequality!
I think that there are differences though in participation and rather than
treat some people as less important, we should treat them as equals and
let everyone compete on their own level.
 
--
Patrick David Walters                     President WSU Cycling Club
97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu                Race Dircetor WSU Stage Race
Undergrad Soc Minor in Fren and Bus         Send Mail for more info on
Washington State University   Pullman, WA   either !
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: mprime@nitrogen.Berkeley.EDU (Michael B. Prime)
Subject: Re: NCCA board meeting summary
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:45:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.220341.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> f0471913@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:

>           On that note I was wondering if a collegiate cyclocross national
>championships will be held in '93. I noticed that the USCF 'cross nationals
>last year included a collegiate district championships. If there's going to be 
>a collegiate category at all, why not sanction it as nationals?
>
The cyclocross will most likely be included with the regular cyclocross
nationals and will be (maybe already was?) sanctioned as a collegiate
national championship, complete with jerseys.

Mike


Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: SYSTEMS & COMPUTING
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:46:12 PST

In article <1993Jan21.191603.20747@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
mprime@titanium.Berkeley.EDU (Michael B. Prime) writes:
 
>In article <16B5C13AB6.97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu> 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>
>>I hold my view on this matter, but what I really want is the ability for
>>"We the students" to have a say in mass about it. Not letting someone who
>>can afford to fly to CO for the meetings. (No offense Mike to you personally
>>just the idea that to serve you have to be financially able.)
>>
>To reply on this one point: The NCCA pays for the athlete reps to attend
>board meetings 2 times a year. We are working on a system to elect the
>reps (probably at road nats), but for now they are appointed by the
>board and the will be soliciting applications soon for next year.
>
>Mike
>
 
I didn't know that. I thought I saw an add for the student rep before, and I
thought it said you had to be able to provide your own transportation. I
think that was quite awhile ago though.
From: paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: The problem with cycling
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:34:09 GMT
Reply-To: paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

One thing that I noticed looking through various catalogues is that
you road guys really take it hard on the wallet for replacement parts!
It *seems* that there are more alternatives for good quality mtb 
parts for a resonable price as opposed to road equipment.  Is this 
a fair assessment?

Cheers...Stuart
From: dhm1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DANIEL HILL MCCAULEY)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: COLLEGIATE RACING POINTS FOR USCF???????????
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:59:11 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


    Yes, I read the post by ????? which argued over the fairness of using
    collegiate points to upgrade to USCF.  Is this permitted?  Thanks!!!

                                                -Dan


                                                
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Daniel H. McCauley IV      ,__o  -UH OH!      o__,      Lehigh University   |
| Electrical Engineering   _-\_<,               ,>_/-_    UC #29 Box 58A      |
| DHM1@NS3.CC.LEHIGH.EDU  (*)/'(*)             (*)`\(*)   Bethlehem, PA 18015 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: The problem with cycling
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:42:08 GMT
Reply-To: harold@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1993Jan25.164722.24247@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> acr@maths.warwick.ac.uk (Andre Rocha) writes:

>Well, I think that maybe I'll get some flames after this post but let's go ahead.

>Then the winter came again. I stop cycling since all the clothes would cost me 
>around 100 pounds. Now I'm running. I went to a shop here that sells running shoes
>and discovered that one of the top shoes available costs 50 pounds !! It's a 
>1993 model and it's a feather !! If you compare this with the 100 pounds of 
>the new GIRO Ventoux helmet or the 120 pounds of the new Dura-Ace SPD pedal,
>maybe you can figure out why cycling is such expensive business. I think that 
>also justifies why there are so few people cycling this days !

>Opinions ? Corrections ? Am I doing something wrong ?

A couple of other people have posted (quite correctly IMO) that you don't
need top-of-the-tree equipment to cycle effectively, however, I think
that I agree with the point Andre is making -- that is, compared to other
sports, cycling is expensive!
Why should it be that a good pair of cycling shoes is more expensive than
a good pair of running shoes? Is cycle clothing more expensive than
comparable clothing in other sports? 

I've seen the Shimano component flame wars, and about the only sense I 
could draw from them was that the top of the line Shimano group sets 
were good, but way over priced. Isn't this over pricing consistant accross 
all higher end cycling equipment?

As for getting value out of older equipment, well, I think that is very
sensible, but it requires a fairly high level of expertise to know
what bits and pieces of old or discontinued component sets are good value.
Someone who is just entering the sport cannot make these decisions and can
really only go on currently available information about currently 
available equipment.

Andrew
  __0    _-_|\      harold@cs.uq.oz.au is: Andrew Wood
 -\<,   /     * <-- Comp Sci Dept, U. of QLD, Brisbane 
0/  0   \_.-._/     
             v      "This is a job for 'The Australian'"    Delicatessen.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: dick@ncs.com (Dick Anderson)
Subject: Re: The problem with cycling
Organization: National Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:02:13 GMT

Andre Rocha writes:
>
>
>
>maybe you can figure out why cycling is such expensive business. I think that 
>also justifies why there are so few people cycling this days !
>
>Opinions ? Corrections ? Am I doing something wrong ?
>

I agree that cycling is expensive, but if you compare it with other
sports, it's not too bad.  If you spend your money wisely, you can
probably get into the sport for $1000 - $1500 (U.S. dollars).  I've 
heard that to start a kid in hockey, for instance costs around $1000
just for equipment.  To play golf competitively must cost a fortune
in green fees.  Skiing is expensive if you consider the price of 
lift tickets and equipment.

There are a lot of sports that are more expensive.

-- 

Dick Anderson
Minneapolis
From: brunnerj@copland.Colorado.EDU (John Brunner)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:15:18 GMT
Reply-To: brunnerj@copland.Colorado.EDU (John Brunner)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

Patrick David Walters writes:

>Hmm let's see here. You say that it is quite logical for the men's and women's
>teams to compete together for a combined title. Well, please tell me in what
>other sport this occurs.  In what sport do the men and women fight for a
>combined trohpy but never actually compete at the same time in the same
>arean!

Collegiate skiing is one sport where men and women's results are combined
to determine an overall winner.  Additionally, team scores are based on
results in both alpine and nordic events, with few skiers (I won't say
none) competing in both types.

John
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Team Motorola will Race on Clinchers in 1993
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:30:28 GMT

Just to keep this line going and irritate those others that
don't like the arguments:

I heard today that Continental Tire has dropped their present United
States distributor and hasn't assigned a new one yet. The present
distributor will be out of tires in approximately sic weeks and
so far there is probably going to be a HUGE lag before these
great tires are available in the U.S. again. Buy up before they're gone.

I guess it's back to Michelins.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: f0471913@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: Washington State University
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:28:36 -0800



The question of whether or not to seperate men's and women's squads in
qualifying for collegiate nationals is going to be one of many difficult
questions facing the NCCA in the near future. It is crucial that when
addressing these quandries the NCCA does so with a mind towards the future of
the entire cycling community.

The basic dilemma is should collegiate cycling attempt to become a NCAA sport
or should it continue as a club sport under the direction of the NCCA? Both of
these options have several advantages and disadvantages which should be
considered.

If cycling were to become a NCAA sport the cycling community as a whole would
reap immeasurable benefits. This is because NCAA recognition would serve as a
foothold for cycling to expand in all directions. With a highly organized,
marketed, and funded collegiate system, the United States could graduate a
larger number of riders to the professional ranks. The trickle-down effect when
USA riders are riding in and winnig major races can be clearly seen by looking
back at the surge in the popularity of cycling after the 1984 Olympics and
Lemond's successes in the Tour. Also, with NCAA reognition comes an increase in
high school programs. Think about all of the excellent athletes that go to 
baseball, basketball, football, track, soccer, etc. because there are
relatively few opportunities for kids that age to get involved in cycling.
Imagine instead that those kids could get involved by just joining the high
school cycling team. One of the drawbacks of NCAA recoginition would be a limit
of 4 years of eligibility (I'm pretty sure that grad students can compete as
long as they are carrying a full workload and haven't used up their
eligibility.) Another drawback would be the loss of the laid back feeling of
collegiate cycling and the advent of a high pressure - winning is the only
thing attitude inherent in many big college athletic programs. However, what I
believe to be the biggest drawback with a changeover to NCAA regulation would
be caused by the differences in the support of cycling programs due to NCAA
divisions and conferences. Teams at division I schools in big conferences like
the PAC-10 would benefit from the change, but there are several schools with
excellent cycling programs (such as UC Davis) which are division II and would
receive relatively little support form their school.

So, to address the question at hand: Should men's and women's squads be split
for qualifying for nationals? I believe that we must first answer which
direction we want collegiate cycling to move. Do we want it to remain an
excellent grassroots recruiting organizaion or do we want to gamble and try to
become a NCAA sport with all of its associated problems and benefits?

-Dave

David Lawson
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
Washington State University
Pullman, WA  99163-4660
f0471913@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
From: jac@noaacrd.colorado.edu (Julia Collins)
Subject: Re: NCCA - Let's Fix It
Organization: NOAA Climate Research Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:42:12 GMT

At the risk of keeping the fire going...

In article <16B638E6.97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu> 97994779@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
(Patrick David Walters) writes:
>There are schools
>who have very few women and they can still survive (WSU is one of them) But,
>in schools where the women's team is dominate they are crippled by not having
>an adequate men's team. Do you see my point here? It doesn't hurt you to
>not have women as much as it does to not have men. That is total inequality!

Inequality for who? For the women? Or do I detect the voice of a man feeling
just a little bit threatened that the success of his team might depend just
as much upon its female members as it does its male members?  You haven't 
yet convinced me that you have the female riders' best interests at heart.
As a previous poster indicated (Mike McCallum, I think, but I'm not sure), 
it's up to the team to recruit and support the members it needs to be 
competitive.  This works both ways.  For the most part, it helps the 
women, because the men know that if they don't keep the women involved,
we not only lose women from the sport, but the competitiveness of the
entire team is reduced.  Yes, your team can "survive" without the women.
I have to say, however, that that statement is very, very scary.  Why does
WSU have very few women? I would guess that you have a pretty significant
female student population.  For someone who has a pretty good
opportunity to further women's riding staring them in the face,
you seem to be unusually worried about the women who have no men to 
support them. 

>I think that there are differences though in participation and rather than
>treat some people as less important, we should treat them as equals and
>let everyone compete on their own level.

As a female rider, I would say that this is exactly what collegiate
cycling does.  And if I were a strong enough rider to compete at the A
level, I think I would also enjoy the fact that I can contribute directly
to the _entire_ team's success.  That sounds like equality to me.

Julia
.................................................................
: e-mail:       jac@noaacrd.colorado.edu			:
:...............................................................:
: Given that true intellectual and emotional compatibility are  :
: at the very least difficult, if not impossible, to come by,   :
: we could always opt for the more temporal gratification of    :
: sheer physical attraction.  That wouldn't make you a shallow 	:
: person...would it? 	 		- Lyle Lovett		:
:...............................................................:
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
From: shenry@cs.rice.edu (Sam Henry)
Subject: Re: Team Motorola will Race on Clinchers in 1993
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:02:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.090807.16410@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas
H. Kunich) writes: 

>... tests by Avocet show that treadless tires have superior
>performance wet or dry. This same point was made in VeloNews and
>other sources, not only by Avocet, but also by Michelin 
>and Continental. ...

And as was pointed out mathematically here about a year ago,
to hydroplane a bicycle tire would require speeds in excess of 
90 mph.

Hows's your spin, IronLegs?


-- 
sam henry <shenry@rice.edu>
Wanna ride?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing