Don,Don Feller":2mu1kcev said:The "minimum to qualify" mindset is the result of the boards quantity over quality thinking regarding the runoffs. Today virtually everyone in most classes are "invited" to the runoffs. That is why there are so many back-markers there for the experience and ending up getting in the way of real competitors. They need to go back to the old days when only the top 3 or 4 in each class in each division are invited to the runoffs. that's when it meant something to be "invited" to the runoffs. It would motivate people to participate in more weekends and it would also eliminate some of the people that shouldn't be participating in the "national championships".
SPEEDSHAK":rvirrkj7 said:On paper, I'm sure this idea was brilliant in terms of revenue per weekend. But what has happened is double the entry, half the participants.
And I can understand rising costs, track rental, insurance etc. But without power in the numbers, Im worried about SCCA Club racings future.
Thanks for chiming in Jesse, I agree with you, its not just RA though, its been every cendiv event this year.
Drivers have repeatedly told us (both in surveys and with their entry fees) they want double race weekends with less diversity in the run groups.
Good points, Kyle. You also have to think about the fact that SM and SRF can have huge fields that could easily account for 1/3 of the entrants at any given event. Certainly those guys would consistently ask for less classes because they know that they will never be bumped, and less classes means more track time for them.disquek":2owk1xsj said:Hi Butch,Drivers have repeatedly told us (both in surveys and with their entry fees) they want double race weekends with less diversity in the run groups.
Although I don't doubt the statement above. I understand that it may be carefully worded. I'd be curious to see the number around that philosophy.
I just don't get the same vibe when I ask around. I also question if these same people who want "more track time and less classes" fully understand what this means.
I've seen some of the surveys and the questions were, to be kind, pretty leading. As in they only spell out the positives. "Do you want more track time and fewer classes in your group?". Well sure. But they don't then also say "And do you also want to rebuild your car from the ground up, pay 3 times what you do now, and send half of your friends home"?
-Kyle
Dayle Frame":3qoh17hq said:The prod/GTL field is very light with only 12 entries (130+ total).....c'mon folks bulk this up or the field or it may be folded into another run group. If you're thinking about entering, do it now and help MIL (and Tracey Gauper....amazing Ms. G!) out. Conference championships are on the line as there are only two events left (this one and Grattan).
Dayle
Butch Kummer":1sz7ptii said:Majors numbers:
West Coast is certainly up in 2014, but so the SEDiv and Mid-States Conference Majors are also up compared to 2013. NEDiv and the Northern Conference Majors are down compared to like events from a year ago, but overall 2014 car counts are up over 700 entries over the comparable 2013 event (some of which were not Majors). Even if you add in the 457 entries for CoTA in 2013, comp counts for 2014 are still 262 ahead of 2013.
"Topeka" is paying attention but we're watching the entire country rather than a single division.
Going back to lurking again...
Frogeye":3qiwht11 said:Dayle,
That's interesting. Memphis struggled to the point of cancelling and we never heard from Topeka. Last year they didn't even list us as a track in the Division when talking about Majors. Well no matter, we're out of the racing business, selling off all our equipment so that's one less track for them to worry about.
Picked up a really bad vibration in Qualifying.Stiner0931":3qqqoe2s said:What happened to Greg?