Cycling a HS sport? Nope, because...

My school has a team:

http://www.andover.edu/Athletics/Teams/CCY/Pages/default.aspx

Sjksmamaamma wrote:

So because there are poor people in the world, we should not have sports which require a $250 investment?

I WAS one of those kids. And I can tell you that time was even harder to come by than money, in that my parents could never take the time off to come see me or take me places. They worked multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

I also worked and contributed, but did in fact save up for a bike during one summer. I saved hundreds from not using the bus.

For the LRC six-figure-sub-3hr-marathon elites who have no clue:

Did you buy your bike with all that money you saved not riding the bus?

How much was the bike?

How much was all the other gear?

How would you categorize your spending/equipment compared to the other teams/riders you lined up with?

I'm not opposed to the idea of competitive cycling as a high school sport. I mean that. But, the LRC generally don't have a clue since they are busy making high six-figures and winning their turkey trots.

andover dude wrote:

My school has a team:

http://www.andover.edu/Athletics/Teams/CCY/Pages/default.aspx

That's actually a great example. Here's the regional league.

Lots of $250 bikes on that home page.... Not.

Again, competitive cycling can be great for kids who don't fit the ballsports mold. For sure. It's one of the few sports where you don't need a particular body type. There's some niche for all body types where they thrive. This is unlike many sports.

But, I see the same useless arms race that drives away participants in older age groups. My point is to leave the arms race to Masters. Cheaper bikes means more access to the sport.

nope... wrote:

Cycling is hugely expensive. The only parents willing to shell out the money on their kids taste for expensive bikes are either rich or obsessive cycling fans themselves.

Golf's expensive. The daily playing to practice off-season costs. Actually, offseason soccer's expensive too.

So maybe it's not as accessible as cross country running or track. But I can guarantee you there a tons of other sports that cost just as much money if not more. Even parents could spend that much money on their kids for cross country if they wanted to. (cross country camps, traveling to nationals, etc.)

That's like saying, guitar will never be popular because they cost so much money. Any kid with a dream will find a way to get his hands on a guitar. Why can't it be the same with cycling. I know countless of stories about guys who have made it in this industry who came from nothing. I also know countless of willing people who want to help people get into the sport by providing the right avenues. Look at MTN. Qhubeka, those guys are an amazing inspiration.

The high school mountain bike association is a huge step in the right direction.

Is the sport super easy to make it into? No. But is running? Tell me- how many people do you know that can make a living off of running. When I said, pay to play. I paid my plane ticket to major races to get noticed. Wow. Shame on me for paying to play. Maybe I just wasn't good enough yet and didn't deserve to have my way paid for me. As for working into my first year as a pro...Yeah I did. I wanted to have a retirement account, I paid off my student loans, got an apartment, paid for car insurance, health insurance, have some spending money for my girlfriend and I to do things...etc.

Life isn't full of rose colored glasses. I can't just expect something to be handed to me. So what if I had to work. And yes, was I fortunate with what my parents provided me? Absolutely. Would I be here today if it wasn't for them? Probably not. I don't know. But I would hate to know that any kid with a cycling magazine and a dream couldn't save for a cheap bike, then maybe one day make it to the top level.

If kids want to race, and their parents can afford it, why not? It's not as if they're taking something away from you. Nobody's going to be any more or less impress with your running accomplishments because some kid like bike racing.

It's disingenuous, however, to suggest that bike racing doesn't have a *huge* cost barrier. It does. A *basic* racing bike costs in the neighborhood of $1400. That's what a Canondale CAAD8 105 or a Felt F75 will set you back. These are aluminum frame bikes with Shimano's entry level race components. Sure, it's probably cheaper than Sailboat Racing or Equestrian, but it's enough to limit the ultimate popularity and growth of the sport. Further, cycling has really priced itself out of the mainstream with the ubiquitous carbon frames and exotic wheels. Typical racers spend several times that because, for right or wrong, there's a near universal belief that you need all that. In the 80's and early 90's the bike playing field was much more level. If you spent much more than the cost of an entry level racing bike, all you got were fancier lugs and a nicer paint/chrome job. There are about 65000 licensed cyclists in the US (https://www.usacycling.org/corp/demographics.php). Membership is growing, but nowhere near the double-digit annual increases in the 80's, and bike sales keep going down (http://streets.mn/2015/07/29/why-are-bicycle-sales-declining-for-the-14th-year/)

You guys are going about this in the wrong direction. It's not cost but administrator fear of liability that prevents hs cycling programs. What happens when a kid is 20 miles from campus and takes a spill and gets injured? Some hs administrators are so terrified of liability they won't let xc and track run off campus. How is that going to work with cycling? Then there is organizing races. A velodrome or mountain bike trails would work if they were available, but most suburban cities don't have these. But for a road cycling event? Can you imagine any city agreeing to close enough road to hold one of these for a hs only competition? After you work out all this, then we can talk money.