what if, instead of rewarding individual riders, as does the current pro tour, a season-long series was designed so as to reward teams?

the thinking here is driven mostly by what will create value for sponsors as well as interest in the entire racing season.  (that, and the matter of, that despite all of the lip-service that's paid to cycling being a team sport, it's really set up to provide the major glamor and rewards to individuals).

   If you are looking for a race sponsor it is better to have the best teams so there will be a guarantee that there will be international interest in your race.  A system for determining the best rider can also spark more interest if your race has several of the top ranked riders.

Kinda obvious I guess because the races are so different and the riders schedules are all tailored differently. How many races are there when everyone is going all out?  Maybe the Monuments.  Not the GT's or maybe the autobus is one's idea of pushing the limit.  Then you also have riders setting up other riders... so complicated to follow casually.

 But car racing is able to get the balance between team and individual better.  But different car race competitions tend to have the same type of race month in and month out.

At least until the PC VDS Cup becomes ALL POWERFUL!!!!

TAKE A HIKE UCI!!!!  STEP ASIDE ASO!!!!!  The Podium Cafe will throw down on all of you chumps!!!!!

well basically.

We should lose many of the lesser races, but the format of yearlong, and GT's does better reflect cycling than just a one team affair.

Face it, cycling ain't about the seasonal slog to the superbowl or world series.  We at PC basically voted Tony the year's best rider based on about :20 seconds of riding at the end of that stage of the Tour.  Sure he won some TT WC, but that charge to the line was what we'll always remember about him.

I voted for Stuey because of his persistence, IN ONE RACE!  Cycling is about putting the hammer down in the race that you peak for.  LA peaked for the hardest race on the calendar and kicked ass.  In the minds of many, he's the baddest of them all (doped on space age polymers or not).  Just like Tony's dash, we'll always remember "The Look".

The UCI is trying to sell something it ain't got and they are trying to sell it to Asia and the MidEast... everyone else already has all they want.  The ProTour is a figment of a marketer's imagination.

Bike racing is about emotion, the moment and the epic.  If you can bring that again and again, then you are a great.  Win the KOM 7 times while being a boring jerk and you're just Virenque.

the Pro Tour provided three things:

• More competitive racing with a stronger field in many races that were sometimes uneven in quality before.
• Some long-term stability for teams, making it possible for a lot of teams to race without constantly having an economic knife to their throat.
• A more audience friendly structure to casual and new fans like Uncle Ted (and myself , it took me a couple of years to find Tour of Flanders after getting hooked on the TdF. I just didn't get where it fit in , none of the guys i was used to seing in summer raced and there were no mountains....)

That was the idea anyway. But I think in retrospect it didn't quite work out that way.

I do like the bank guarantees. Cycling teams are less quick to fold their tent this way and leave riders holding bad checks.

OK, so my premise isn't entirely on...

The Tour gets folks to watch.  That includes parts of the 99% of the population that doesn't think its a swell idea to don spandex and spend crazy amounts of money on a bike(s).

But past the Tour, the fans need a Dealer.  One who is wise to the ways of what's quality out there.  Its not like we are born with the DNA that tells us that the Tour of Flanders is fantastic; we have to find it first.  That's what the PT does- or should do if only McQuaid wasn't a first class tool.

But now we are looking at a CART/Indy Car situation times 100.  Flanders will always be Flanders but it could be truly a worldwide event that alll sorts of people would love- and with an even higher number of quality riders- if it were only promoted correctly.  Course many of its fans like it small.  They don't care that other people like the sport.

Sounds like the PT's benefit to fans is a somewhat artificial organization of what races to watch. This is something that could be done entirely on paper, with no involvement from the race organizers (as long as no rights within the race are expected). For example, the Podium Cafe could say we're putting up a $100,000 prize (or more accurately, a free wool jersey) for whoever scores the most points at the following races: Tours, monuments, etc. The race organizers could completely ignore us, but the riders and teams would probably pay some attention and designate someone to take home the loot, if possible. THere would never be universal agreement on what races to include, but free speech is a curse anyway, right?

The PT's more concrete benefit is something entirely different: the access for teams to race entries, and the bank guarantees behind the teams. These are two different forms of assurance for things that, in most cases, were going to happen anyway. CSC will probably pay their bills for the foreseeable future, and no race organizer in their right mind would fail to send them an invite. But there are dicier teams, whose riders aren't sure of being paid (COAST anyone??), and as we saw this year, there are teams that won't get invited to everything (Unibet anyone?) for reasons either good or questionable.

To me, I appreciate the latter more than the former, since I've been a fan for a while. But the latter is INFINITELY harder to pull off. The former doesn't mean all that much to me, but despite the origin of this post, it could be asked, why not?