SARRC Points Proposal

[seckerich]

I am planning on submitting a change to the SARRC committee for the 08 season. With 23 races on the schedule for 08 counting only 6 for points is a little outdated. The current system also rewards the SIC with the equivilent of "triple points" and is too track specific in my opinion.

My Proposal for your input:

1. Count 1/3 of the races run in the season for points (that would be 7 for 2008)
Would change if there were less races scheduled without a rule change.

2. The SIC would still be double points

3. Ties would be broken by number of wins (or possibly count one more race for the tie breaker)

Like to hear your thoughts on this. In the current system we have more of a "roebling" championship" than a season champion. Too easy to win without the season long results to back it up.

[JeffYoung]

I think this is fine.

Only comment, and this is something that benefits you and I both but needs to be considered -- the number of races at particular tracks.

My car likes the point and shoot of CMP. You kick a#$ there. There are six SARRC races scheduled for CMP next year.......

[Knestis]

What Jeff brings up is more of an issue with the calendar - the decisions re: what races to include in the SARRC, and where - than it is the points system.

I like the suggested changes as I look at the possibility of actually running for a championship next season, now that things are settled down a bit.

K

[Cobrar05]

I have built my schedule around this rules package. I am running SARRC, SEDiv national, and NASA American Iron.

Force me to run more races and I have to start cutting.

[tom_sprecher]

For obvious reasons I am very interested in this topic and would like to hear more input on this subject and the justification behind any changes to be considered. Please do not take this as questioning anybody's logic but I need to understand it more.

1. Unless I missed something a quick review of the SARRC points did not show many examples of close points races that went down to the SIC and triple points. For the average racer why are total points from 6 races outdated or less appealing than that of 7?

2. While there is a certain appeal to having the SIC at different tracks it is hard to get away from the fact that Roebling is just about smack dab in the middle of the SEDiv and appears to be rather affordable. Are there any suggestions for comparable locations or a rotating schedule both Areas can agree on?

3. The double points with the tie breaker being winning the SIC was done in part to guarantee the importance of the SIC and ensure the race would be well attended. If the SIC is degraded to a level not much above a typical regional race and suffers from low subscription it will run at a loss and eventually not at all. Would an increase in the entry fee, say about 25%, or requiring running the SIC to be the SARRC Champion be acceptable to offset this possibility?

4. There have been a few grumblings about too many races from workers, drivers and racing regions alike. While it gives everyone plenty of opportunity to race it can cause economic hardship to all those involved. The racing pie is being divided into ever smaller pieces yet the bills keep getting bigger. Although it may be full of insurmountable obstacles perhaps fine tuning the schedule is in order. This of course is outside of my jurisdiction but is definitely within that of your RE at the Annual Meeting. Let them know how you feel.

[JeffYoung]

Tom, I might be wrong, but I think ITS, ITA and IT7 all went to the SIC with three or four drivers who could conceivably win the championship based on the SIC's results.

Need to think on this one for a while. I see Steve's point and tend to agree with it as someone who tries to run at least 8 to 10 SARRCs a year. But I also see your points about making the SIC something special, which I think it is right now.

[Cobrar05]

The SIC is our special event. The track is in the middle of a large southeast division and unlike the other quality venues in SEDiv, is owned by the SCCA. We get a prime date at affordable rates. Its a track that is both challenging and doesnt beat your equipment to shreds.

Where would you rotate the date to? The good tracks are booked with most decent weekends returning to the same groups annually. That is why the runoffs don't rotate.

Road Atlanta is booked. VIR is booked AND too far north. Daytona and Sebring are too far south.

Who wants to run the SIC at CMP?

I probably could deal with one more race, but does one more race really mean that much?

Leave it alone.

[seckerich]

I think this is fine.

Only comment, and this is something that benefits you and I both but needs to be considered -- the number of races at particular tracks.

My car likes the point and shoot of CMP. You kick a#$ there. There are six SARRC races scheduled for CMP next year.......
[/b]

There are actually 4 SARRC races at CMP. Two are CCR, and two are SC region which has a waiver to use CCR's home track.

I said nothing about moving the SIC?? I do not see how the SIC would not be attended by anyone who is running for points. It is 2 races added to you total (double points) and is part of the best 6 plus the SIC that made up this years total. I just think a championship that only counts 1/4 the races is not good. I want to see people not park their cars after 6 and wait for the SIC. Some classes were won with less than 6 races. Great if you can get away with it. A driver can win every race they enter all year and loose to someone with 2 wins--sound like a championship? That is what the ARRC is for if it is all about one track and one race. All I want is a little more towards the driver that wins all year and a little less about just the SIC. All that would change is one more race counted and a more fair tie breaker. The SIC was triple points and tie breaker for a while--what a waste of a season.

[JeffYoung]

There's six CMP SARRCs on the schedule -- 2 in March (SCR), 2 in May (CCR) and 2 in October (CCR). Just realized that the last two are for 2009, my bad on that.

Ok, I am for this. 1/3 of the total races makes sense to me. It does require more commitment to the SARRC series, and I like that.

So, to be clear, points would be:

1. 1/3 of the races

+

2. the SIC, which would count double points?

Is that right Steve? If so, yes, I support that. Seems to keep the SIC's importance, while rewarding more consistency.

Means I have to finish more races.....lol.

[seckerich]

You are correct Jeff.

Currently:
6 races for points (1/4 approx)
SIC counts 2 races (total of 8 for points now)
SIC is tie breaker (basically count the SIC 3 times)

Now the SIC is basically 1/3 of the total deciding factor for champions.

Proposal:
1/3 races run in the year (7 if schedule holds) Less if races are canceled
SIC counts double points (total of 9 for points)
Number of wins or pull in the next highest finish to break tie (either one is fair so whatever works for drivers)

A driver would only have 7 races to count if they skip the SIC (all others count 9)so it would not diminish the big event. It would reward the driver who wins consistently rather than the fastest car at Roebling. Smoke it over.

[Parrish57]

I'm really split on the issue. As I plan to run for SARRC points in 08 this is an important issue.

I can see the need to tweek the tie breaker issues at the SIC. The championship should reward consistancy thoughout the year over the final race. Making the number of wins the tie break instead of SIC finish makes sense.

But..... I'm opposed to changing the 6 race rule. There may be 23 races on the schedule but at least 11 of them are "geographically undesireable". And if I lived in the southern end of the region that number would be 15. Also, not everyone can make all of the ones that are close, whether that be for time or financial constraints. For example, the ECR series rules make it impossible to run for points. Too many races in too many places. I see the SARRC series as a great alternative to that. And after all there is nothing stopping someone from running more than 6 races if they have the $ and time to do so.


And.... I don't see any reason to change the location of the SIC. RRR is the most logical choice for a divisional championship.

I'm not closed to change, I just think we should make baby steps and then give it some time to see how it works...

Steve
SARRC Hopeful

[tom_sprecher]

I mistakenly read "roebling championship" as a desire to have the race at other venues which, although has some appeal, may be impossible to schedule.

As with most decisions there are pros and cons. On one hand it rewards those who run often and can afford to do so, but this is true of any points series using a "best of X races" system. On the other hand anyone who consistantly finished first could most likely do the same at the SIC and would not need an extra race or fewer points assigned to the championship. There's the combination of the two as well.

I think it's a good idea, will talk it over with the "usual suspects" and would appreciate any additional input you guys can give here.

[seckerich]

That was the reason for the post. Lets talk about it and see what makes sense. Steve might be right with just the tie breaker change and leave the number of races alone.

[Ron Earp]

I didn't fully understand the situation until Steve laid it out in his post. I sort of got it, but it seems the SIC simply counts too much in the year's tally. I feel a driver should be rewarded for consistent performance at a variety of tracks, not heavily weighted on one track. It makes sense to me to change the weighting a bit to reduce the importance of RR.

I plan to run for points in 2008 (as a beginner I can assure you not many points!) and I do see an attractiveness to moving the race around. However, hearing a few bits and pieces of track scheduling issues with a few of the locations I can see where this could be extremely difficult to pull off.

Good thread!

Ron

[RX3]

Tom
Can you tell me why that most of the races in the northen part of the division are SARRC? And are doubles on top of that. And most of the car raced in the division are in the state of Fl. And there only two doubles down here one in CFR other in Fl region.

[JeffYoung]

RX3 -- is that a Florida region issue? Double SARRCs are sort of the order of the day up here. Why is that not the case in Florida?

[tom_sprecher]

Tom
Can you tell me why that most of the races in the northen part of the division are SARRC? And are doubles on top of that. And most of the car raced in the division are in the state of Fl. And there only two doubles down here one in CFR other in Fl region.
[/b]

Some of the Regions in Area 3 may feel that both the SARRC and ECR squeeze isn't worth the juice, or so I've heard. The feeling is that when ever they hold a race weekend it will be over subscribed irregardless of if it is run as a SARRC or ERC race. Then they do not have deal with the restrictions imposed by SARRC or ECR rules including paying the awards fees (used for trophies and year end purses, respectively.)

This has only occurred in the past year or so. It may seem to take advantage of all the other racing regions that choose to pay for SARRC and ECR funds as well as the drivers who participate in each series and want to win that jacket but it is capitalism at work.

Also, if I am not mistaken, there are only two racing regions in Area 12 and rules restrict the number of races and doubles that can be run by any one region. In addition, Area 12 regions generally want the race to be run under SARRC or ECR rules, and as a double if possible, as it draws a bigger crowd of serious, series oriented drivers, and their $$$. Or so I've heard.

[DavidM]

I don't really see anything wrong with the current number of races. I think 6 races is a good number. It's enough that you have to be committed to running the series, but isn't so many that people with less $$$ to spend get left out. You could conceivably do three double race weekends and get your 6 races. Add the SIC weekend and that's 4 weekends. That may be all some people can do. I've been trying to do 6 or 7 weekends a year including the SIC and ARRC. So I'm really only one weekend more than the current minimum required to run the SARRC. I don't see that requiring another race for the SARRC really changes anything. So some people park their cars after 7 races instead of 6. What changed? Most people are going to race ever how many races their budget and time will allow regardless of the minimum number of races needed for the SARRC and how many points they've collected.

The tiebreaker rule I could see changing. Most wins (including the SIC?) or some other mechanism that factors in the entire season.

Ron, you'd be surprised what a beginner can do. My slow ass has finished 6th in ITA points the last two years (which is significant because you get a plaque to commemorate your effort and thousands of dollars spent ). This is mainly because I've done my 6+ races and finished every race. I pretty much illustrate what the season championship is about. I ain't the fastest, but I show up and finish. Now all I have to do is get faster so I can move up a couple places next year.

David

[RX3]

The SARRC rules say that a region can only hold one double a year. That is why there is only 2 doubles SARRC in the state of Florida.(it is a SARRC rule ) On a single race weekend (one sanction number not a SARRC race) the regions in Florida hold three races. At a lower cost to the driver. That way the drive gets to start in three races, race three races and have more fun, more time on the track. The Central Florida region this year sanction 8 race weekends. Two of the weekends were regional national one was a double SARRC that means they pulled 11 sanction numbers.(2 national 9 regional) On top of that the region put on two drivers school. So they sanctioned 13 race events. And the Florida region did almost the same number of event as the Central Florida region did

[raceit]

RX3 -- is that a Florida region issue? Double SARRCs are sort of the order of the day up here. Why is that not the case in Florida?
[/b]

Does it take a double to get your attention up north, otherwise it is not worth your trip?