In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (rick h) wrote:
>
[email protected] (alex beascochea) wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> > It is official, ONCE will stop sponsoring their profesional cycling team at the end of this year
> > (2003). This together with the dismissal of Banesto can provoke a great deflation on the cycling
> > market (at least the spanish) in the next few months.
>
> I've been wondering why bicycling didn't evolve to have an official fixed number of team
> franchises like other sports, i.e. the ownership of a franchise switches over time but the team
> stays largely intact. Certainly, I like the current arrangement. It's part of bicycling's culture,
> and allows newcomers with $$ to sponsor a new team. But a franchise system might be more stable,
> e.g. won't have a Coast dissolving in mid-season.
A major difference is that cycling is an all-against-all team sport: numerous teams in each event.
It may be the biggest sport, now that I think of it, where you have head-to-head competition among
multiple teams, not just multiple individuals, and with some tactical considerations at hand (team
relay running really only relies on "run as hard as you can," strategy-wise).
Because of this, and the lack of home tracks, teams barnstorm from race to race. At various pro and
amateur levels, it's not unusual to have conflicting races competing for the attention of teams. The
teams themselves have a lot of control over their schedules.
That said, a Premier League of teams, with a recognized race series, might be doable. The problem is
that major teams like USPS are quite happy with the current system where they contest the Tour all
out, the Vuelta as hard as they can, and the Giro not at all. Any Premier League that didn't manage
to include all three races would be crippled.
--
Ryan Cousineau,
[email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club