Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[Butch Kummer]

Yes, the "Majors website" can be reached by clicking the "Majors" tab on SCCA.com.

[Greg Amy]

Where is the Majors website?

...the "Majors website" can be reached by clicking the "Majors" tab on SCCA.com.

In case you're still cornfuzed...

http://www.scca.com/majors

[Butch Kummer]

And given your lack of familiarity with the program, I should also probably ask the guys that are ready to drop the distinction between the Majors and Regionals:

"Have you ever been to a Majors event?"

[gran racing]

That's where I went, but based on Butch's comments I was somewhat expecting a separate site linked from SCCA's.

[Knestis]

And given your lack of familiarity with the program, I should also probably ask the guys that are ready to drop the distinction between the Majors and Regionals:

"Have you ever been to a Majors event?"

<raises hand>

In my opinion the quality of events varies more region-to-region than it does majors-vs-regionals (or national-vs-regional before that).

Majors trophies were nicer than most regionals, but I was frankly a little annoyed by the number of national office staff that seemed to be just sitting around or socializing while the region ran the race. (Nothing personal, Butch.) The longer races were offset (for me anyway) but less competition. I didn't race for a position in four Majors (two doubles in the STU Jetta TDI) in 2013, but had a good race or two last year in STL. Fields were still thin, although less than the least-subscribed ITB regionals in recent years and much more than the best of those B brawls (e.g., pretty much anything at Summit). The paddocks at the Majors events I did were typically more packed but with fewer racers if that makes sense; more big rigs with less hanging out at the track. It was nice to have some consistency in the day's schedule major-to-major but some variability won't kill anyone and can be managed by standards to apply to ALL club events.

At the end of the day, if, say, we went to a model where all of the current GCR classes were available at all events, and points were accumulated for regional and divisional championships, and some combination of points from those results served as a qualifying process to the RubOffs, competition would allow the cream to rise to the top - in terms of driver/car entrants. Let only the best-subscribed classes from 2014 go to the 2015 big dance, and the same would happen for classes. The market would decide.

The distinctions are all manufactured and artificial. If they went away, some of the people at any given "Club Championship Race" would be all SRS BSNS and some would simply be glad to participate. It would take a little while for folks to shed their biases and preconceived notions - most of which are flawed - but with the kind of turnover we have, it wouldn't take long for the culture to change. To be clear, this whole issue has bamfoozled me since i went to my first SCCA race in 1979. Nothing has changed my opinion on that.

K

EDIT - if we think there's value in having a small number of "showcase" events, just do the above but with one double-points "festival" or "super" event in each region.

[StephenB]

OMG kirk gets it!!

Butch, with all due respect why did you strrt this thread? Let's flip sides...

To me it's obvious your emotionally attached to the majors program. Why? What is so great about it that all you insiders see? Sell it to those 25yr members like me that still don't get it. You were on the inside, spill the secrets!

Maybe it's a north east thing but the bigger fields and deeper competition have been in IT, FV, SRF and then recently in the last 10yrs you can add SM. Nothing but expense, travel, and a chance at the Runoffs were the only advantages to nationals aka majors.

Thanks, Stephen

[TomL]

"Nothing but expense, travel, and a chance at the Runoffs were the only advantages to nationals aka majors."

Stephen, there's a solution to your problem -- don't run majors. You in the NEDiv have a goodly selection of regional races to run, just like us here in the SE. We (and you) have more races than we can reasonably hope to attend already. I'm truly perplexed at what would be gained by making everything just "races". If your local track has a Majors, that might be one more race you can run cheap (no travel). But there's nothing stopping you from running them now. Even if you are in IT or some other regional-only class, there is almost always an ST or Prod class you can run in. I've done it before. I was hopelessly uncompetitive using an IT car in STU, but I got to race. But unless you have a really strong regional-level car, you're always going to be uncompetitive at a National/Majors anyway.

My impression is that a lot of the serious Majors racers like the new program. It concentrates the really serious racers at a few events with a very high level of competition (or at least the highest level that you can get if you run in a lightly subscribed class or in a weaker division). I think the people shooting for the Runoffs generally liked the change from running a dozen or so Nationals with usually weaker fields to running four weekends with bigger fields. If we make everything "races" and they all count for towards the Runoffs, I don't see that being well received by the Majors racers. Remember, in SEDiv, you're talking 71 regional races, plus this year 12 Majors races. At that point, qualifying for the Runoffs is essentially meaningless, unless SCCA just decides to forget about "qualifying" and just lets everyone who has run, say, four races go.

I think the serious Majors racers like things as they are. And before anyone takes offense that lots of regional racers are pretty serious, too, I agree. However, there is a difference between serious majors racers and serious regional racers. And it mostly relates to money. Regardless of how serious a regional racer you are, it's very unlikely that you're spending the amount of money that it takes to run an comparably competitive Majors effort. That is the main virtue I see to the Majors/Regional distinction. It allows the serious racers who aren't willing (or in many cases even able) to spend the money it takes to be competitive in the big pond of Majors. A lot of us realize we're always going to be small fish in that big pond. But we can still be big fish in the small pond of regionals. And you're proposing that we all get pushed into the big pond.

I still get the impression that the underlying reason that people keep proposing making everything "races", is that they want IT to be just like the National classes. Kirk's discussion above is effectively arguing for that - the top X number of classes would likely include most IT classes. But as tGA has said many times, it ain't gonna happen. And I seem to remember that the idea that the less attended classes didn't get to go to the Runoffs was proposed just a few years ago - and withdrawn due to the firestorm from the membership.

I agree with Butch that somebody needs to explain again what benefit we would get from eliminating the Majors/regional distinction. We've had one for a long time. This doesn't mean it's good, but it does't mean it's automatically bad, either. If we're going to make such a change, I'd like to see a good reason to do so. I haven't seen a good one yet, and I've mentioned some reasons why I think it wouldn't be such a good idea. Again, why do we want t do this?

[gran racing]

I was not a fan of the National / regional distinction, but think the Majors program works. I have not been to a majors event and honestly have little motivation to attend one. Butch and others who have been to them, are my perceptions here accurate? Stephen, this is why I think Majors work:

- It's a series much like ones you participate in, except spread much more around the country. This appeals to drivers who have the means to attend events further away. You'll see many of the same drivers at COTA, Mid Ohio, the Glen, Sebring, and all over the place. The Majors gives them a more national series.
- Employees are there from Topeka which should allow for more consistency due to events being held across the country and by different regions.
- More invasive tech (again, it should be).
- Prestige, or at least perceived. The talk of the big rigs and corresponding big $$$$, let the Majors attract those people.

At least that's my take.

[Butch Kummer]

Butch, with all due respect why did you strrt this thread?

Why did I start this thread? Because a bunch (or at least some) of you guys say you want change!

In various discussions on the Concorde Agreement (or whatever it's called today), current members have asked the BoD to explain why getting down to 14-16 classes will make racing better. That explanation has yet to be advanced as far as I've seen, and to me that's the biggest reason to NOT force class consolidation (let nature take it's course)

In a similar vein, some of you guys insist that inviting every class to every event will make your racing better. Why?

[Butch Kummer]

Said another way:

Back when I first attended the Runoffs at Road Atlanta in 1971, there were 22 classes that ran in 21 races (7 races Friday thru Sunday, A & B Prod ran together). There were 8 Prod classes (A-H), 4 Sedan classes (A-D), 4 Sports Racer classes (A-D), and 6 formula classes (A-C, F, V, SV). Even then a number of people complained that "SCCA has too many classes - the racing is too diluted and it's difficult for the public to understand!" yet all efforts to reduce the number of classes over the years has failed. The latest proposal is to have the CRB come up with a ten-year plan to reduce the Runoffs to 14-16 classes, and it's being met with the expected protest by those invested in the current class structure. I'm certainly not resistant to change, but I've yet to hear (from the BoD) a compelling argument WHY we need to reduce the number of classes.

Over that same period of time, there has been Regional and National (now Majors) racing. The idea is people get started and learn their craft at less intense weekends, then if they want they can move/transition/migrate (note I'm not using the word "advance") to a more intense level of competition. BTW, the Solo program works the same way - lots of local regional programs, then those that want to can travel to a limited number of National Tours and a winner-take-all National Championship event.

Even though it's worked well for over fifty years, more than one of you wants to eliminate that distinction in the Club Racing program. Why?

[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