View Single Post
Old 05-14-19, 05:45 PM
  #13  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,383

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2892 Post(s)
Liked 25 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by topflightpro View Post
...
Cycling is already moving in this direction at the amateur level in many places. I'd bet the bigger issue is in things like women's professional tennis.

As for the issue on field size, a simple disclaimer that the promoter reserves the right to cut purse by 50% for any fields under 10 covers that.

But really, the smarter move is to just remove the purse for amateur racing.
Absurd for illustration. How are you going to define identical when many things are different.

Having lived through Title IX (and read all of it and NCAA rules) with a kid in each gender, son being the least relative talent (I know you know), it has a drastic affect on sports offerings for genders.
For NCAA, no football for girls, now rowing for boys in NCAA and variance in money everywhere. I am not complaining, I used it. Non NCAA there is still "a market" for cycling in college. But it parallels what I see in the general "real world". That being, the money is going to follow interest, or what produces money.

If this passes, this will eliminate women's racing - or prizes as you state. OR what happened at Boulevard - they cancel the whole RR as having a men's race without a women's one was unacceptable to UCSD.

We can compare in a couple years if this passes.
Doge is offline