Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[Knestis]

It's kind of a typical way of looking at questions like this, but I'd propose that Tom is asking questions about value from an individual point of view - what does Stephen have to gain from eliminating the distinction when he doesn't run Majors? I've long been in the minority on this but I do *not* think that we achieve the best collective racing program by assuming that we should simply give each individual what he/she wants at any point in time. I'd further argue that a lot of the ongoing crazy-making policies in the Club are the result of "being responsive" to (sometimes individual) members' interests rather than having the nards to make strategic decisions.

I don't personally care if we aren't stroking the egos of current Majors entrants, if we have a program that's based on sound theory with the potential to be more healthy in the long run - across the entire Club Racing package. If the qualifying points system rewards beating people rather than just showing up (a la what we did with the IT National Tour), drivers will naturally gravitate to better-attended races chasing those points. Regions will pick races that they want to showcase and work to get more drivers there. Every driver will look at his/her "national" and "divisional" points in the tally and some will, I guarantee it, attend more races to improve their rankings or possibly decide to chase a championship or qualify for the RubOffs. Change the qualification requirements from participation numbers (bah!) to an actual COMPETITION. Only the top XX (or %) of points-earners in each class from each division get invited. Go beat someone if you want to get to the big show, lame-o. We could count only the best X finishes in the qualifying points scheme. Whatever.

I equally don't care if we "push everyone into the big pond" and make mere regional racers run with the big dogs. It's called competition. Get some.

We've GOT to set free any policy decision that's (a) predicated on some assumption about what racers spend, or (b) intended to limit what they spend. That's ongoing bad policy and/or class warfare silliness.

The "let all classes run" orientation comes straight from a first principle that if a class is in the GCR, and if members have built cars to run in it, then it should be on equal ground opportunity-wise, with all of the other classes in the book. While a suitably empowered dictator could force consolidation, I don't for a minute think it's possible given our rules-making and administrative processes and culture. Letting them all start on an equal footing but encouraging competition for national championship status recognition would, as Butch describes, "let nature take its course." As things currently stand, there are no predators in the SCCA environment, so classes have no reason to evolve. Nature will just leave things as they are. I don't think that letting every class in will "make the racing better" in a year or two but if there IS some incentive to cherry-pick a well attended class to realize a personal goal of going to the Big Deal, it will make for a better program in the long term.

Finally, I take it as given that - if the intention is to RACE - fewer classes is a good thing, as long as the classes offered give some variation and choice among them. If a new racer is presented with three options for "racing something that looks like a street car" rather than seven, they are NOT going to just walk away.

K

[Butch Kummer]

The "let all classes run" orientation comes straight from a first principle that if a class is in the GCR, and if members have built cars to run in it, then it should be on equal ground opportunity-wise, with all of the other classes in the book. While a suitably empowered dictator could force consolidation, I don't for a minute think it's possible given our rules-making and administrative processes and culture. Letting them all start on an equal footing but encouraging competition for national championship status recognition would, as Butch describes, "let nature take its course." As things currently stand, there are no predators in the SCCA environment, so classes have no reason to evolve. Nature will just leave things as they are. I don't think that letting every class in will "make the racing better" in a year or two but if there IS some incentive to cherry-pick a well attended class to realize a personal goal of going to the Big Deal, it will make for a better program in the long term.

K

K,

Your proposal is more than just to let everyone run every weekend, which is what I understood most of the previous posts were wanting. What I see you're saying is "Let everyone run every weekend AND only the top XX classes get to go to the Runoffs."

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

[mossaidis]

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

...(crickets)...

[StephenB]

. What I see you're saying is "Let everyone run every weekend AND only the top XX classes get to go to the Runoffs."

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

This is what I thought would be a good idea. I feel it would increase participation in the national eligible classes during regional weekends which would help my entry fees :-)

I have said it before and although not all that passionate either way I don't think IT should be considered for the runoffs. Let it stay what it is. I still see it staying what it is even if it ran on the same weekends as everyone else.

I have never heard of anyone wanting the contingency from the majors program. Never in the 25 years I have been a member did I think that or hear that as an argument to go national.

I also want to be clear I am not insistent, and couldn't really care. I have multiple posts here trying to make you understand my idea, aka, suggestion. Take it or leave it, just an idea that hasn't been tried before, except in NASA. I am happy with the group and schedule I get with the NERRC series.

Kyle, great post. I think your on to something if the majority of majors drivers want it the way it is. I haven't understood why most people doing majors don't just go to SCCA WC, I would think a TCA car probably has a smaller budget than most of the majors classes.

Stephen

[Knestis]

It strikes me, Kyle, that many of your arguments assume that nothing about what a current Majors or Regional event looks like (as you see them) would change if the distinction went away, while others presume that there will be some huge result which will be bad. To the specifics...

** Like to travel to other tracks? Nothing about a consolidated program would prevent that.

** Nice homogenous run groups? We get messy groups when we try to jam lots of cars into a few groups (e.g., to get a one-day regional in the books), so only go to the races that offer more open schedules and groupings that are attractive to you. Again, nothing about all events having the same status prevents you from doing that, or regions from offering races like that.

** Manufacturers get involved in contingency programs to reach customers. It might indeed be that some decide to slice their existing pie into smaller bits, making any given event award smaller. However, it's equally possible that they might be excited about reaching a LOT more SCCA racers across the nation. There's no way to know at this point and frankly, it's a minor issue compared to equitable offerings to all Club members, so I personally don't think it carries a lot of weight. (I'm also generally dubious of contingencies from a more philosophical point of view, since they tend to reward the folks who spend more money than their competitors. Some quite literally rob from the poor to give to the rich, like the distribution of spec tire revenues from the entire field to the winners.)

** Any complaint about entrants not running "the other series" goes away when there's no distinction between the two. I haven't seen any argument here about why that's a problem beyond the fact that "it is one." When everyone runs a consolidated program, competition overall increases.

** Re: "all races become regional," I'd argue that in practice, "all races become Majors," in the sense that they are part of a bigger deal. To be clear though, this kind of consolidated scheme would allow a person to accrue points for regional and divisional championships, too. Anyone who's opposed to something like this because it makes it harder to win a regional championship - against more competition - needs to tell me that to my face so I can laugh at them. This isn't supposed to be a feel-good HPDE program. It's "racing."

** Not trying to do something because its not politically feasible is not the same thing as not doing it because it's "impossible." It's entirely possible to merge our current regional and Majors programs. As Butch points out, it probably won't happen because too many people put their personal short-term interests ahead of having a cohesive program that might - should - outlive their involvement. We keep giving people exactly what they want and a HUGE percentage of them still only participate for a couple of years. Or we give people with longevity but narrow interests too much pull, and end up with tiny legacy classes or other issues <coughplungecutcough>.

** Re: "certainly result in fewer entries," I have NO idea what evidence or theory-of-action serves as rationale for that. Help?

** Finally, it's interesting to me how you view the idea of a consolidation as "eliminating your side." Wouldn't it be "eliminating THEIR side," too? I have no side, in that I've essentially split my time between Majors, regionals, and other stuff (a la Lemons) for the past few years. Over the past 30+ years, I've had SCCA regional, national, pro, rally, and NASA licenses and all the while wondered why we insist on Balkanizing our racing into dozens of tiny chunks. Is it in fact because everyone wants a trophy? That would be sad.

As to why...? I would hope to gain a successful, vital roadracing program that can survive EXTERNAL competition. SCCA continues to be its own worst enemy, squabbling amongst ourselves over petty palace intrigue while the barbarians are at the gate. I don't recall now who I heard it from first (Scott Giles? Bowie G?) but it's true that "SCCA eats its young."

K

[Knestis]

Not everyone has the skill, commitment and ,yes, money to compete at the National/Majors level. Your "It's called competition. Get some." comment is far more condescending to regional racers than anything I've seen from the PTB in SCCA. ...

How is it condescending to "regional racers?" It's supposed to be condescending to anyone who chooses to avoid competition.

Atlantic coast Regional ITB races used to be WAAAAAAY more competitive than a majority current Majors class races are now. The guys who won my two-car STU races in 2003 didn't in my eyes have much to crow about. And I'd say the same to those who cherry pick poorly subscribed SARRC races to win a "championship" against racers they never see on the track, let alone beat.

As to why consolidation? Look at SCCA's closest competition for a great example.

K

[mossaidis]

What Kirk said... seriously.

This is the defining section which makes me sick:

** Not trying to do something because its not politically feasible is not the same thing as not doing it because it's "impossible." It's entirely possible to merge our current regional and Majors programs. As Butch points out, it probably won't happen because too many people put their personal short-term interests ahead of having a cohesive program that might - should - outlive their involvement. We keep giving people exactly what they want and a HUGE percentage of them still only participate for a couple of years. Or we give people with longevity but narrow interests too much pull, and end up with tiny legacy classes or other issues <coughplungecutcough>.