Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[Greg Amy]

you're all right in my book, Tom! I just wish you'd come up here more often, we miss having you around.

If your point is that competitors running Nationals/Majors consider it "more serious bizness" you'll have no disagreement from me. But I've seen and experienced some, such as yourself and me at times, that spent just as much effort on a Regional program. I guess in the end it's all about an individual's goal, and if the Runoffs is their goal, then you have to do Majors. In mid-00s the ARRC was my goal, so I did Regionals.

But is it the chicken or the egg? Which causes what? I disagree that we do, or should, consider Regional racing to be a stepping-stone, or that Majors/National drivers are necessarily more experience or better drivers, though they tend to gravitate that way. Me, I went STL because I liked the ruleset, I wanted a good excuse to drive Road America, and I wanted a strong event to do it in (the Runoffs). But I'm thinking that after I check Daytona off my list in 2015 I may be looking at dialing back the traveling and doing more Regionals (dude, Palmer is going to kick ass, you need to come up here and drive it). We'll see where the Club goes for the Runoffs in 2017 onward.

There's strong competition in Regionals, and there's weak competition in the Majors. It's all about what your personal goals are...

GA

P.S., yeah if your SSA run was in '89 you tanned me pretty good; I think I finished 25th? I wasn't aware of where the strategic resistor had to be soldered in to keep the car from going into low-boost limp mode from high IATs. But I figured it out for '90 and finished 7th and 5th the two years after that... That CSX is for sale, if anyone's looking for a project car...

[StephenB]

Butch,

I didn't say to add race weekends to the schedule, just make them all eligible. Since I don't participate in any major weekends then short term I do think those none major weekends would gain some participation but still not in my class. Long term I am banking on the fat that if SCCA was easier to understand, more accessible and/or welcoming then we can grow our customer... I mean membership base. I am not saying this is the answer by any means but it's working for bmw club and NASA pretty well.

Also note that just because every race is the equivalent of a majors weekend doesn't mean every class is eligible for the runoffs. I agree that IT should stay as is and not head to the runoffs but if it did I wouldn't be upset or happy...

Lastly, I think your marketing point is pretty valid and I never thought of that. My only thought if the whole confusing major/divisional stuff went away is that we could still market a few races to help drive excitement and new membership, rather than pick random races we are trying to increase attendance at.

Good topic, I plan to stick with what I am doing as long as I am racing no matter how you all figure it out!

[Ron Earp]

I agree that IT should stay as is and not head to the runoffs but if it did I wouldn't be upset or happy...

My only thought if the whole confusing major/divisional stuff went away is that we could still market a few races to help drive excitement and new membership, rather than pick random races we are trying to increase attendance at.

You're contradicting yourself. The two underlined phrases are mutually exclusive.

[StephenB]

I am not trying to...

Get rid of the confusing majors ect so that every "race weekend" is the same. Make specific classes listed at the beginning if the year as runoffs eligible... ie post the runoffs schedule at the beginning of the season and let people pick a class to race in and commit all their money to. With that being said don't ever include IT in the "runoffs" race week. Still have divisional champions in IT and maybe bring back the ARRC as the place to play for a national IT championship.

Does that make me sense without contradicting myself?
Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Get rid of the confusing majors ect so that every "race weekend" is the same. Make specific classes listed at the beginning if the year as runoffs eligible... ie post the runoffs schedule at the beginning of the season and let people pick a class to race in and commit all their money to. With that being said don't ever include IT in the "runoffs" race week. Still have divisional champions in IT and maybe bring back the ARRC as the place to play for a national IT championship.

Does that make me sense without contradicting myself?

No. The point of Majors events is to present a unique, low-volume product with the goal to qualify for the Runoffs. Everything you just said above contradicts that.

Well, except if you removed all references to Improved Touring, at which point we could create a different kind of product, keep it more regional, put in local/regional classes, and call it...wait for it...

[seckerich]

I think it would be a bad thing to get rid of Majors, or Nationals as they were in the past. There are many drivers at Regionals that can run with most of the top drivers in our club. That said there are many that would find they are just a big fish in a small pond. If you do not like drivers with stickers every session, and want 200 TW tires you will not be happy running Majors. Ignoring the class consolidation attempt for the moment, we need a place for drivers to play at a higher level below a Pro series. Majors have started to cluster the drivers at fewer races and helped bring up the field size in some areas. The killing of the regional programs in those areas is the result of not allowing those regions to add a regional group to the schedule to stay financially viable.

What the club should do is allow a regional grouping at Majors, separate from the Majors entry like we do with enduro groups now. Even IMSA saw that as positive with the Pro IT series at their pro event. Would help finances and give all our members a chance to see how things are outside our inner circle. If you have a car that fits the Majors then just run that group.

[Butch Kummer]

The killing of the regional programs in those areas is the result of not allowing those regions to add a regional group to the schedule to stay financially viable.

What the club should do is allow a regional grouping at Majors, separate from the Majors entry like we do with enduro groups now. Even IMSA saw that as positive with the Pro IT series at their pro event. Would help finances and give all our members a chance to see how things are outside our inner circle. If you have a car that fits the Majors then just run that group.

Two years late the BoD recognized the folly of not allowing regional-only run groups at Majors events, but for 2015 they are now only allowed at "historically low subscription events". I'm not sure. but I think that means events that project less than 100 entries based on past performance. And I'm not in the inner loop any longer (and am trying not to care) so I'm not sure if that means regional-only classes can share the track with Majors classes or not (by BoD edict they could not in 2013).

And if every "race weekend" is the same (as StephenB suggests), where do the Enduros (yes Dr. K, I know 90 minutes with a mandatory pit stop is not considered an "enduro" in some circles ) fit into the mix? Typically those races are shunned by slick-shod cars (GT, Prod, FSR) and are instead populated by their DOT-tired brethren and, at least in some areas, SRF.