2014 Improved Touring Participation

[Greg Amy]

What really gets the IT racers though, is that while IT is regional only it a) still gets controlled to a large extent via the CRB and b) provides a large amount of income to the club but its racers are still essentially second rate members of the club.

a) We can resolve that by removing it from the GCR, and thus the CRB's control. Then IT is no longer centrally-controlled and all the locals can do with it whatever they feel best.

But IT racers don't want that: they want a centralized set of rules that somehow spontaneously happen without any centralized control, all while being infinitely responsive to the needs/desire/votes of the racers competing within it.

So do you want a centrally-managed set of regs or do you want the regs to be responsive to local needs/desires/votes? Sorry, you just can't have it both ways.

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.

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.

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

[Ron Earp]

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.

I'm asking, doesn't the region contribute money back to HQ based on the entries? Fewer regional racers, less money back to Topeka.

I think regional racing does have an impact on national classes. The two best attended national classes, SM and SRF, are also well subscribed at the regional level. I suspect if there were fewer, or no, regional races that the participants in these classes would find other outlets for their racing. National races are fewer in number and will require participants to tow for longer distances to obtain their racing fix, and that could cause a decline in their numbers.

NASA does a lot of stuff wrong, but one thing they got right was not having a regional/national racing program. There are races and a championship. Come one, come all.

But IT racers don't want that: they want a centralized set of rules that somehow spontaneously happen without any centralized control, all while being infinitely responsive to the needs/desire/votes of the racers competing within it.

Have you polled the body of IT racers to come up with that assertion? Or is this based on the topic being discussed here six years ago?

I imagine that if you were to take a poll of current and active IT racers in the NE and SE that the majority of them would choose for IT to be a national class. Just a guess. I'd be interested in knowing the answer.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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)

[Greg Amy]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not arguing that it will or won't happen. I am arguing that it COULD happen, and be successful.