Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: 2014 Improved Touring Participation

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post


    b) Improved Touring does not provide a large amount of income to the Club, other than in licensing (and I suspect the overhead may exceed those revenues). Improved Touring does, however, provide a large amount of income to the regions in the form of entries.

    Ergo, IT is better off being a regional-only category, responsive to the regional racers it serves and the regional leadership that benefits from it.
    But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors? What defines income for the 'Club'? If it's entries at Majors, then not allowing one of your biggest classes access to it is limiting your own income potential.



    I've moved back and forth over the years between National/no-National. when I was competing at the top of my game in ITA I wanted to bring it to "The Show", but I have always realized (well, at least since the early 90s) that once one does that the game changes significantly. Today's winners in ITA have zero chance of consistent success at their current level against Spec Miata-level Nationally-prepped ITA efforts. That's just the way this game works.
    So what? Is it conceivable that a guy with a top Regional effort would want to continuously up his game and have goals and targets to shoot for? The flip side to this is that guy gets bored with smacking his locals around and stops racing. Now there is lost revenue.

    The farther we get into these debates, the more I'm leaning toward the idea that Improved Touring and the SCCA in general are better served by removing the ITCS from the GCR. Solves all ills for everyone.

    GA
    Only because you are in the 'futile' camp and you just don't want to deal with the chatter anymore. Removing IT from the GCR would ruin cross-regional series and the desire for those to travel to different tracks out of region would slump if cars were illegal race to race. Not good IMHO.

    My stupid view is simple. Run all the classes at 'Majors'. Top 25 average participation classes get their own run groups at the RunOffs. The rest that meet minimum participation are in multi-class groups. Set and abide by average National minimums to be eligible for Runoffs.

    I see very few reasons it can't work and why it's not the best thing for the membership as a whole. (Unless the silent majority is for regional only racing, obviously as we live in the squeaky-wheel world here)
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 12-11-2014 at 11:01 AM. Reason: spelling
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors?
    Dude, it could FLY if it had wings.

    Once again, I'm arguing Reality, you're arguing you want a unicorn for Christmas. I believe you that you want a unicorn for Christmas, I'm just trying to tell you it won't happen.

    But...submit a request, prove me wrong: http://crbscca.com

    GA

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    I am not arguing that it will or won't happen. I am arguing that it COULD happen, and be successful.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •