Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[jumbojimbo]

The IT group gets to run at the Kansas Speedway Majors in 2015.

Let me guess: as a separate group with 5-6 classes. IE: sure, you can run your go carts during our lunch hour if you pay the bills for us when we can't support ourselves.

edit: now that i've read more, let me rant about contingencies a bit. I don't like them because they are a benefit only to the royalty and a tax on the rest of us. That money comes from sales, why should my $200 tire pay you for winning races in another series?

And that's kind of my issue with all of the distinction. My impression is that regional racing pays the bills and national racing doesn't. Regional sanction fees pay more bills than national sanction fees, regional purchases pay for national contingencies, etc. Regional racers pay the bill and national racers get the benefits.

[Ralf]

Let me guess: as a separate group with 5-6 classes. IE:"rational". IE: sure, you can run your go carts during our lunch hour if you pay the bills for us when we can't support ourselves.

It's a step in the right direction. We had 3 cancelled events due to low entries in MiDiv this year. We want to race. So what if we'll be the last run group of the day.

[StephenB]

Have you looked at entry fees for a majors weekend? I don't think us"regional" guys are getting screwed at all. In fact I have decided that I don't want to get rid of majors for that same reason!

Yup I flip flopped :-)

[Knestis]

On what theoretical basis do you presume that entry fees would necessarily increase if we just had "club races," Stephen? I just don't think it follows logically that it would be the case.

K

[StephenB]

Because... SCCA

[jumbojimbo]

I've seen mention of track time, the implication is that national...er...majors give more track time. True, they give longer races, but not necessarily more track time.

One advantage of the current split is that for regional races we have flexibility in the weekend schedule. We're not stuck with the majors format. We can run a 15min qualify, 10 lap race, 12 lap race both days if we think that will draw more cars than the traditional Qual-Race, Qual-Race. We can run a 1 hour race. We can run a handicap race. We aren't required to run one painfully long race a day.

One issue is that the only reason many people run majors is to qualify for the runoffs. If you allowed people to run the runoffs by simply finishing one major race, a lot of people would run just that one race. So in order to force people to run enough races to make the majors viable, you have to create an artificial barrier to the runoffs.

Which means that you can't just do away with the distinction or you've lost your ability to force people to run races they don't want to run in the first place. Because if every race weekend had the same value in qualification for the runoffs, people would run the bare minimum. That's the cancer of national racing and the runoffs. The marginalization of the actual race weekends into something you're required to do in order to qualify.

For me, that's the part where the tail wags the dog. My group of friends and I run MORE races than most "national" drivers because we enjoy the racing. Each race weekend is what matters, it's not just something we check off so we can run the runoffs. I don't want to skip a weekend because I'll miss that weekend's experience.

But, it seems from my perspective that every decision made is made with the runoffs in mind. Does this hurt regional racing? Who cares, it helps the runoffs. To me, the idea that we can build our club racing system from the top down is wrong. The idea that if we have a prestigious national championship that takes effort and commitment to win will trickle down and draw people into regional racing is wrong. The idea that having SportsCar focus on drivers who can spend $100k a year on their "program" and who see club racing as a stepping stone in their "career" will draw people to regional racing is wrong. What will draw people to regional racing is affordable classes with stable rulesets and good schedules that don't have 12 week gaps in them.

The reason NASA, Lemons and Chump grew so fast was that they concentrated at the base of the pyramid, not the top. They drew away the people we've been ignoring, the people who want to get started at a reasonable cost. Meanwhile SCCA has concentrated on the 18 year old kid whose daddy can afford a $75k car and a $250k annual budget. Of course, then those other groups reached a saturation point, lost focus and started to concentrate on the top 5%, just like SCCA does, and look were it got them...

[dickita15]

Jim, I was right with you until the last couple of paragraphs, national racing is a small part of what we do as a club and yes it gets more press. but the change from Nationals to Majors over the last few years came with a corresponding increased freedom for regions to design event that suit the local competitors. we also have a new focus on the more entry level ways to have fun with cars in SCCA. the Time Trial rules book was redone to make it easier to put on events. The Club Racing Experience make it possible to get people on track with a very low hassle factor. in 2015 you will see a some new stuff from the Experiential Department that you should approve of.

just because we have a Majors program and a Runoffs do not think that is all SCCA cares about no more that have a Solo Nationals make local Solo any less important.

[Knestis]

I've seen mention of track time, the implication is that national...er...majors give more track time. True, they give longer races, but not necessarily more track time.

One advantage of the current split is that for regional races we have flexibility in the weekend schedule. We're not stuck with the majors format. We can run a 15min qualify, 10 lap race, 12 lap race both days if we think that will draw more cars than the traditional Qual-Race, Qual-Race. We can run a 1 hour race. We can run a handicap race. We aren't required to run one painfully long race a day.

One issue is that the only reason many people run majors is to qualify for the runoffs. If you allowed people to run the runoffs by simply finishing one major race, a lot of people would run just that one race. So in order to force people to run enough races to make the majors viable, you have to create an artificial barrier to the runoffs.

Which means that you can't just do away with the distinction or you've lost your ability to force people to run races they don't want to run in the first place. Because if every race weekend had the same value in qualification for the runoffs, people would run the bare minimum. That's the cancer of national racing and the runoffs. The marginalization of the actual race weekends into something you're required to do in order to qualify.

For me, that's the part where the tail wags the dog. My group of friends and I run MORE races than most "national" drivers because we enjoy the racing. Each race weekend is what matters, it's not just something we check off so we can run the runoffs. I don't want to skip a weekend because I'll miss that weekend's experience.

But, it seems from my perspective that every decision made is made with the runoffs in mind. Does this hurt regional racing? Who cares, it helps the runoffs. To me, the idea that we can build our club racing system from the top down is wrong. The idea that if we have a prestigious national championship that takes effort and commitment to win will trickle down and draw people into regional racing is wrong. The idea that having SportsCar focus on drivers who can spend $100k a year on their "program" and who see club racing as a stepping stone in their "career" will draw people to regional racing is wrong. What will draw people to regional racing is affordable classes with stable rulesets and good schedules that don't have 12 week gaps in them.

The reason NASA, Lemons and Chump grew so fast was that they concentrated at the base of the pyramid, not the top. They drew away the people we've been ignoring, the people who want to get started at a reasonable cost. Meanwhile SCCA has concentrated on the 18 year old kid whose daddy can afford a $75k car and a $250k annual budget. Of course, then those other groups reached a saturation point, lost focus and started to concentrate on the top 5%, just like SCCA does, and look were it got them...

Sorry - I'm going to continue to press. Why address the possibility of doing away with the distinction between Majors and regionals by assuming that the resulting club racing program has to look like just one or the other currently does?

** In a consolidated plan, there's no reason to assume that flexibility in scheduling couldn't continue. I've proposed a points system (for championships and qualifying for the Ruboffs) that awards more for beating more entries. Entrants would go where the competition is rather than running away from it, if they really want points. Regions would vie for entries by making their events as attractive as possible and flexibility would be a crucial part of that. Hell, cost could become a competitive advantage for entries, exerting downward pressure on entry fee prices across the board.

** Allowing people into the big game by attendance - let alone by attending one race - is just silly, as is using that as an argument for not considering a change, frankly. Do away with it. Offer seats at the big kid table starting at the top of the points tally from all races, working down through the rankings until the Ruboffs grids are full.

** NOTHING in this proposal would keep you or anyone else from running as many races as you want, from staying in-region, or from traveling.

** The fact that the current answer "forces" (or is perceived as forcing) people to run races they don't want to is evidence that something is broken. We should instead create incentives by rewarding actual competition.

** Again, set free the assumption that we need separate programs, as is required for any worries about trade-offs between a healthy Majors program and a healthy regional program. We need one, cohesive, HEALTHY program. Having class rules consistency plus local flexibility across events would go a long way that direction. NOTHING in this idea, at least as I've suggested it, would prevent regions and regional-only racers from getting what they want. Unless it's the opportunity to not race against more people.

K