Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Buying A State Championship > BMX NOW > BMX Racing
Pages: 1, 2
How fare/right is it for a track to buy a state championship? Is there not a better way to figure up the points? Shouldn't you have to race at least one race to have your membership count. Just doesn't seem fair for a track that has worked hard to build up a great rider base, and then have another track sigh up all there cats and dogs at the second. I know its $ in the ABA's pocket, but come on..........

[ July 02, 2007, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: oldfatboy ]
bikesrus and I didn't even have to start this this a track in So. Cal?
I'd rather buy a State Championship than a Sate Championship! What is that anyway?

Sure, if they pay the fare it's fair!

Sorry, I know I'm a jerk but I couldn't resist!
*checks watch*

Well I'll be darned! It's time for the annual "Track X bought the championship" threads to start.

Where does the time go?
Bmx Brat
Must be Colorado were talkin bout.
Great job for honestly winning your state race.
Kamikaze kid
Completely agree. I wish the ABA would review this process and make a few adjustments.

It's been the case in our state where we have three tracks, one which has the final every year. This year the same track hosted a National, additionally. Although I agree the top performers should be rewarded for their effort, I don't think the state final should be the reward.

It sounds like sour graps but it's really not. The track we compete against is clearly the best track in our region. That said, I know people are growing tired of the fact they will have to travel 2+ hours for the state final every year. I know people who are writing off the entire series because they know it will be the same old thing.

I would recommend the final be rotated between each track. The top point earning track would then earn an additional double point’s race. This would be a win for that track, as the it would be an additional revenue event for both track and sanction. I would also add that a track hosting a National not be able to host the state final in that same year. In our state it seems the rich get richer and poor get poorer. Granted Track operators must do for themselves and work towards having a successful program. I think a little more help from the sanction would be a welcomed addition. I just haven't seen a bone thrown in any other direction then one track in our area.

I make these comments with the utmost respect. I'm good friends with the track operator, and am a track operator of one of the other tracks. Big brother track has helped me allot and been there for me everytime I've needed help. I take issue with the format in which ABA employs not any one track for being more successful then the other.

[ July 02, 2007, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Kamikaze kid ]
Kamikaze kid
//Well I'll be darned! It's time for the annual "Track X bought the championship" threads to start. //

Guess it's easy to be sarcastic when you have two other tracks with slightly more then 100 points to compete with. No offense to these other tracks, simply validates my point of "rich getting richer while the poor stay poor"

Also not meant to detract from the hard work that track "X" has done. Just couldn't find any value in the sarcasm.
Scot F.
How fare/right is it for a track to buy a state championship?
By the way the rules are written, it is completely fair. Any track can choose to buy the State Championships if they want to.

As for it being right, some rule changes could be concidered. Wouldnt it be cool for the State Champ Finals to go to the track with the most actual, point earning racers?
BS you have too much time on your hands, not like the rest of us that actually contribute to these important threads! Or is that impotent threads?

[ July 02, 2007, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: jeromefriesenhahn ]
BS you have too much time on your hands, not like the rest of us that actually contribute to these important threads! Or is that impotent threads?

[ July 02, 2007, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: jeromefriesenhahn ]
Uh oh, jeromefriesenhahn is here...!

Just wait 'til you read the "rider count" thread!
It's not right. a rule change needs to be made.
Just a thought, does every track want to run the state finals? I've been part of the track that got the state race and one that didn't, same track op and one that says they don't want it. Here's an idea, buy it next year. Get all the local parents to spend $35 and it just might save them $400 in travel. I've know parents that would be willing to do that.
So, if I start an NBL track in Texas would I get the state championships?
But it is getting away from the idea of promoting your track, and building a bigger rider base. A track should be putting that money into improving there track, instead of buying a race.

So ABA, is this about getting more $, or getting more kids into racing?
This is one of the small items that I personally like the NBL way of doing things. Perhaps it is because I am a Southerner, you know we like State rights.....

In the Carolinas (NBL) we rotate the championship race every year. This being the first year of the combined (SC & NC) we decided to give the first championship race to Gastonia, because they need the financial boost more than the other tracks involved. They are clearly the less likely track to win the new sign ups, re-ups award, so under the ABA system, they would never host the race.

So, IMO, under the NBL structure, the local people can make decisions that they feel best help their particular situation. Now, of course, with that can come abuse. So, I suppose there are pros and cons to both methods.
Here's an idea, buy it next year.
Best advice all day!
What if it is not for sale ?
Yes Pat, you'd get to have the state race and be the Grand PooBa or state comisioner too.

What if it is not for sale ?
If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
Here's an idea, buy it next year.

Best advice all day!

Agreed, its never been a secret how the system works.

A track should be putting that money into improving there track, instead of buying a race.

Ahhh therein lies part of the rub. These races bring lots of revenue to the hosting track, enough so that spending 1k or 2k or 3k on memberships becomes a profitable business decision (albiet a risky one if competing tracks were doing the same).

I would hold no ill will toward a track that decided to spend some dough to buy a state race, or encouraged its parents etc. to buy memberships. (seriously, have them buy the super gold card membership, double points!).
A track should be putting that money into improving there track, instead of buying a race.

OK, again, why would a track need to do this? The TO's can call to find out where they stand in the points. If they're close, they let the track know come the next race night that they're having a membership drive to win the STATE finals. Point out that if every family bought a new membership it would get us the win. Point out again that a $35 membership fee is half a tank of gas and it'll take 2 tanks to get to the finals if "WE" don't win it, never mind the hotels and food.
what if this way you guys are speaking of is not really how it works?
You mean; like if someone just hands out the race to their favorite track even if their riders don't like the track? Say it isn't so.
Wow,lots more cry babies in the stands today.The lowest cost of a membership is 35.00 dollars can't you pull that extra money from your kids college fund come on its racing go get the money.
Every year they start june 21st shouldn't the number 2 track get the state final come on thats why your number 2.
The only competition that tracks have and always sore losers get a grip .
Spend the cash your kid doesn't need to go to school he can be a BMX star instead.
What a good response.
I am sorry, but in my eyes it is just not right to sign up a bunch of people that are not going to even race. This kind of attitude is just going to pull away from what the track SHOULD be doing. Promotion. Lets get new rides. Lets build our sport. But if that is the way it is going to be, then I can tell you that I will not being chasing a state plate any more. Not worth the 8hr drives for a track to just buy the race instead of earn it.
Ive seen it happen everywhere. In my own state as well as others Ive seen it personally. Doesnt really matter to me. I teach my kid to win on ANY track, doesnt matter where it is. It would be nice to rotate every year like some NBL states do just for a change of scenery plus it helps expose the tracks with a small turnout to a larger one...
What if the track that gets all the finals weren't the one that got to have it all the time. Is there a better track to have it at?

People complain about Desoto, but if there were to be a big race weather would not ruin the race. Would it be cool to have it other places, sure. But is there a better location travel wise, I don't think so, it's about center for everyone in the state.

And what if your local track didn't want the headache of having the finals? Sure they want the money from it, but the work building up to it and the rush to get the points figured out. Is your TO going to tell you they don't want it, probably not.
bingo bikemonkeys, I think a lot of people in the TX area are glad to see it year after year in Desoto, because it cannot rain out. Right or wrong, that's what the debate is really about here, the rules and right or wrong.... but there is no real debate about it being a good location that has no rain out trouble, if we are being fair.
I would like to see it figured on retainment and who actually has the most riders with points- who also return the following year and have points once again. Anybody can sign up a bunch of stiffs, let's see somebody build a program for 20+ years, that's where it is at!
It appears this may have happened in our state also. Don't know Don't have a opinion.

I just don't like the fact that the tracks are battling against each other and in turn possibly hurting personal relationships between TO's.

If you are in our area you may know what I am talking about, and I really hate to see my Friends battling.

I don't have that many Friends.

Nothing is fare in life, why would bmx be any different??
Brett Middaugh
Here's a wild crazy insane idea.
Let the riders vote on where they would like to have the championship in any given state. Whether it's an nbl or aba track.
Ah...jack em, *** do riders know anyhow.

Better to rotate amongst tracks and even if the track that gets it that year is one everyone doesn't like they still have to go.
Or do the capitalist thing and make it all about the benjy's.
Those riders are a PIA, wish they would just all go away...
I like the current (ABA) system.

It rewards hard work and careful management.

If someone gets it from you, it's because they worked harder with even better management.
Elvis, I agree to a point, some tracks can never win it because geographically they will never get their rider count up to win the state champ, i.e. small town verses big city That’s when you have tracks putting fake membership in so families don’t have to travel to the same track year after year.
Kamikaze kid
Like I said before, easy to see it that way when the track's you compete with have no interest in competing. No offense to the other tracks.

I'd be curious of your opinion if you had to drive 2 1/2 hours every year because you're track lost by a hundred or less points. No offense to the other track

It should be shared unless the track doesn't want the responsibility of putting on the race.
909 sKILLS
Since every track has a qualifier How about the track with the biggest SCRQ turnout gets to host the following year (that way people would know ahead of time where it's going to be). It would kind of be like voting, the best liked track usally gets the biggest turnout. And it would also promote competition between tracks to make the track better, instead of worrying about new sign-ups they could spend that money on fixing up the track.

Having experienced driving 6+ hours a couple of years in a row for 2 years I can say it really sucks. Especially when the track hosting is pulling a 1/4 of the motos of our local track and giving out memberships to host it.

We don't bother anymore. We race the same kid that chases it regularly anyway so what's the point?
Kamikaze = Try 8hrs for 50pts to the worst track in Idaho. And they were not even close at the last month when you could not check it anymore. Sorry, but any of the other three Idaho tracks deserved it way more that these guys.

This was taken off of Utah's web site after the state qual down there.

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Stansbury Park
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Idaho photos and...


Well I was able to get photos from 2 of the 3 days in Idaho. Sunday was extremely windy and I did not want to sandblast my lens (I could describe the Q-tip from the aftermath but alas you have been spared).

I would like to thank the many folks in Idaho that were friendly and accommodating. I am however sad to say we will not be going back anytime soon. As and outsider, my impression is that some significant events have taken place that are causing tension amongst the locals. I won’t go into details since it would just be my observations, but it is fair to say that if we lived in Idaho Falls we would not be racing anymore.

If anyone finds that Idaho has settled their problems, please let me know so we can put them back on the schedule.

Anyway, enjoy the photos!

[ July 03, 2007, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: oldfatboy ]
I don't see how buying riders "rewards hard work and careful management." but whatever, the So Cal race finally moved and we have something to look forward to having it at Kearny! It's almost like when the tornado made the house land on the wicked witch....
How does a track "buy" a rider?!?
They buy memberships for real people who don't ever ride thus boosting their memberships, which add into points that the ABA uses to calculate who gets the state race.
Carp Dawg
[QUOTE] [/How does a track "buy" a rider?!?
Any old phone book will do. Sad very Sad.
[QUOTE] [/I like the current (ABA) system.

It rewards hard work and careful management.

If someone gets it from you, it's because they worked harder with even better management. QUOTE]
If thats careful management, I am going about my life in the wrong direction.
I guess your right ELVIS cheaters always prosper.
This has happened many times in the past in our beautiful State of Oregon. It caused a lot of discontention amoungst the track operators, families and teams each year. At first I was frustrated with the system and frustrated with the talk about it at my races. Some riders at a different track even tried to start a petition to stop this track from doing this year after year which only caused more drama at the races and being a track operator I chose not to participate. (They have since switched boards and the new board chose not to pariticipate in this)

I just had to get to the point where I really didn't care about hosting this race and focused more on raising my rider counts for the single point races I could host, which is my primary job as a track operator anyway. One big race with a high cost in trophies isn't gonna make or break my track, but continued low rider counts will kill it for sure.

I don't know if the State race was brought this year at the track it was awarded to or not. But it was interesting to look at the number side of this game and it got me thinking. What would make tracks work together more in a district (we have four in ours and our other district in the state has four as well so this would work great for us) than awarding the State race to a district based on total riders earning rider points at the time of the deadline and create a lottery type drawing for the tracks in that district that would be interested in holding the race and then the next year the track that hosted the prior year could not pariticipate in the lottery (to give other tracks a chance and to move the race around a bit). If your track wasn't suited or had the volunteer base or for whatever reason to host this race, than you just wouldn't enter the lottery.

I ran the numbers in our State to see how we actually sat with riders earning points but it's not totally accurate as the racelist shows races pretty much though June 6th posted for almost all our tracks. But here's what I found (and I'll check it again in a few weeks once the races are posted through June 20th). District#1 has 65 total riders more than District#2 earning points... but District#2 was awarded the State race (and I really have no problem with the track that got it... they run a great race). I just thought it was interesting to look at it this way.

Anyone can sit in front of a grocery store and sign up every kid that walks out the door for free with the track paying their membership... getting them to the track is a different story and should be the primary goal as well. Award the tracks that are getting the riders "to the track to race" not just filliing out a piece of paper.

Again, I don't know if the race was bought this year or not.. as it was only a 19 memberships difference between our top two and the track earning it finished with only a 100 point lead, so I don't think it was. I just know we'll hear talk about it this weekend for sure at our big SCR weekend at the track that was in 2nd and I wanted to be able to stop them in their tracks with facts so that's what got me looking at the points difference in the first place... they second half of my inquiry into rider numbers was simply for my own curiousity and trying to think of a way to make this system possibly a little more fair.

Just my thoughts...

Chehalem Valley BMX
After thoughts ... this system works well in States with equal tracks in districts... maybe it would work better to take it to the track level. New memberships only count when a rider earns a minimum of 15 points (which could be about 3 races) and track operators are severly warned about ghost riding new memberships for rider points. You can only "ghost ride" a rider so many times before people figure it out and talk will happen and it would be hard to do this for about 50 riders anyway.

I honestly think tracks should be awarded for participation more than a piece of paper sent in where the sanction is the only one benefiting, unless that rider rides... there's no benefit to the track at all. (except getting the state race...)
You simply can't use Florida as an example. Florida is basically their own sanction with their own way of doing things. Besides, I offered to let Madden in the Carolinas with equal share......
New memberships only count when a rider earns a minimum of 15 points (which could be about 3 races) and track operators are severly warned about ghost riding new memberships for rider points.

I actually really like this idea because it also give more incentive for a track to keep the new riders racing.
I usually dont like to jump in on these discussions, but fact is such track you talk about in Oregon has not had a regular local race much over 6 or 8 motos (used to be 12 to 18 minimum) since said new board took over, up until this Spring this track was in its worst shape in the past couple years. I dont want this to be a this board is better than that board issue as they are all volunteers; but like it or not the "bought memberships" brought new riders out, all of them raced and to this day alot of them still race. The money was specifically donated by a charity group for that purpose, new board has not been interested in pursuing this type of charity money, why, I dont no, hopefully its not because of the "We are not going to buy the state race issue" because that just deprives the families that could use the help.
Now I also agree with having the state race at different locations as long as the track is of a caliber to hold such an event, I was having a blast last year until I wrecked! I am sure this year will be fun also, and hopefully it will come your direction sometime so we have covered all 4 points of our state.
A couple things I don't like about "rider needs to ride for the track to get the points" idea:

1- It encourages ghost riding. Seriously, if they go to this system, then next year this thread will be about how "X won it 'cause they ghost rode a bunch of dummy riders," and, let's be honest, it will be so regardless if they did so or not.

2- If I sign up dude from Parks department (I haven't, but still) to be sure he gets a magazine and is kept in the loop on stuff, I'm spreading BMX. As we've learned on this board time and again, being on the track does not make someone a BMXer, especially when the goal is to spread BMX community wide.

So then I thought it could be done via track moto points, TORF points, factored into the equation.

But again: All that really does is open the door to fraud.

And really, is it fraud to sign up someone who doesn't ride? I'm not sure that it is. And before it goes there, I'm not sure that in doing so you're in essence taking money from the track -- especially if by doing so the track gets to hold the state race.

I don't like the idea of a political body moving the race around every year. As pointed out up-thread, look how well that works out for tracks which aren't in the popularity constest. And, think about it, if buying a stranger a membership is fraud, then what is being encouraged by doing things to make a board think favorably of you so that they pick your track for the next years? Is that not fraud, or at least some sort of corruption? (Granted, one hopes for professionalism on the part of a board, and this statement is no reflection on any existing body.)

But still, what I see is next year some thread about "X got the race 'cause they bought Y for the board members' kids."

In fact, the more I think about this, the only thing I see replacing the current system is a system more flawed.
CJ - that's really sad to hear... and we did enjoy going down there for the State race many times - it was more the drama it caused in the background with the riders (and a crazy TO in our district) that was more the issue, hence the petition and crap like that, that went on at the races - I got dragged into many conversations about it and it got tiring so as TO's in our State, Roger and I just took the position that under the current guidelines the track was doing no wrong and that's just how it goes, they got the memberships and therfore they got the State Race.

It certainly was their option to use the charity funds in any way they saw fit, the only frustration for the other tracks in the hunt for the State race was finding out at the last minute a track that was 40 riders to 50 rider memberships (400-500 points) behind them faxed in those memberships on the very last day to take the race. Tracks were doing that all over the country and that's why now tracks can't see other tracks points after May 15th to try and keep it a little more fair.

There's no easy solution for this and I certainly would rather spend my time focusing on having consistent growing rider/moto counts, more appropriate classes (keeping novice with novice etc) and spend my time planning fun events at the races than worry about getting the State race.

Hope to see you at a race soon.

Chehalem Valley BMX
Let's have an Oregon BMX rumble!!!

(I'm kidding, let's not!)

What's up CJ? Hope to see you soon!
I have discussed this with other TO's about putting all tracks that want to participate in a pot and pull names at random.
Not all tracks want the headache of putting on an SCF, so only the ones that want it are considered.

No track could be awarded a second SCF within 5 years, and let's face it, with the turnover of tracks, TO's, etc., some facilities on the initial drawing may not be around in 5 years.

I am all for spreading the wealth around for those that want a share.

With that said, I confess, a track I was TO at, worked with another track to BUY an SCF. It was work, but we split the responsibilities of the event, plus the expenses and the profits 50/50.

This was 3-4 years ago, so I don't remember the exact numbers but I think it cost us (both tracks) between 2-3K combined, but the event made us about 15-17K, split in 2, that is about 6-7K for both tracks.

I can elaborate as questions arise.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.