I agree 100% with Bill Miller's concept, and with Greg's observation about money spent and the level of prep currently happening in IT.
Using Bill's outline, if you want to "get to" the Runoffs, as an IT racer, you would have to find the Qualifying (ex-National) races and commit to the travel and dollars required to run them. If you don't want to get to the Runoffs (due to constraints in budget, time or for whatever reason) - you simply run whatever Non-Qualifying (ex-Regional) races that you want - and I am assuming that these would still have "Regional" points (NARRC, NERRC, MARRS, etc) implications. What's not to like?
If this were to happen, how many new races would the SCCA folks need to add to the Runoffs? 4 or 5? Isn't the program now run over 5 days? I would think that there must be a way to squeeze in these races. Or, as was suggested earlier, if necessary, the lowest subscribed car classes prioritized by total Qualifying points would not get a "spot" at the Runoffs. I would hate to see that happen, but as a CLUB, isn't the SCCA supposed to be working toward the greatest good for the largest numbers of its members?
Anyway, I think Bill Miller's approach is right on. If people want to "go for it" they can. They can spend whatever dollars that they want to on prep, etc. While others can still do as they do NOW, and run regionally, with whatever level of dollars / committment that they currently run.
It would be good if we could start identifying issues here in this forum that may need to be addressed if this concept ever becomes more than a "glint" in the eye. Such as - A)"Qualifying race" length and the issues with adding 4 more races per weekend Regional series (NARRC, etc) and any potential negative implications, etc
Thanks for listening.
Tim M
Tim Mullen
# 86 ITB
2006 NERRC Champion - ITB
2006 NARRC Champion - ITB
Bookmarks