Revised Point Structure for 2013 Majors, National Races

Let's stop .quoting SCCA pro series. The only really important ones are way in our past, and todays are barely plugging along, meaning pro makes a profit, however modest, certainly not enough to pay for anything else in SCCA. So they are taking the pro gamebook, spectacular as it is, and we're going to have our highest level amateur racing modeled after it. What's that saying - if at first you don't succeed, try a little harder. That one was made up before people started using brains folks.
Mark my words, this is the end of national racing as we have known it during the last 50 years. Before that one had to cart all around the USA to get enough races and points. To make it fairer, they instituted the division/runoffs system to permit people to qualify in nationals all in their geo area. I'd bet that in the new system you can't qualify on nationals alone, forcing one to go to some number of majors. In SED, ignoring a 18 hour pull to VIR, there are only 4 nationals (3 doubles) in 2013, and as I remember, all are rationals.
Gas is headed for $5 a gallon and they are going to start lengthening our tows.
Rich man's racing is coming to SCCA - not that it would bother the large % out there already.
 
The real casualty here is the Run-Offs. Creating qualification paths through Majors, Nationals, and Regionals diminishes the significance of the Run-Offs.

There was always "contenders" and "also rans" at the Run-Offs, but their paths of qualifying were equal. This qualification system widens the gap between "contenders" and "also rans" and will result in a wider range of abilities/capabilities on track at the Run-Offs. When I won a Regional Championship, I never considered myself Run-Offs worthy.

If the serious "contenders" for a National Championship complained of backmarker traffic before, this should be interesting, unless they're serious about enforcing the 115 o/o rule. They've never enforced it before.

We'll see.

RJS
 
Harold Flescher":4vma27rv said:
.... In SED, ...., there are only 4 nationals (3 doubles) in 2013, and as I remember, all are rationals..
Click to expand...

Harold,
I wanted to check on Florida and this Majors thing before I thought about traveling down. Sebring is a Majors event. According to Butch Kummer he signed the contract with Central Florida Region last Friday.

Homestead, the week before is not a Majors. WHAT's going to happen at Homestead DEC 28-30. ARE they going to get any participation??

Peter
 
Didn't think of it. And I can make it there next year

quote="brian downey"]Harold,The Prodfest is looking better and better and the swag good[/quote]
 
Hi Pete,
The hardest part of anything is the waiting. Why SCCA didn't do anything until they are ready with the whole story, is testament to the fact that a lot of these folks would probably also make good politicians. Not so good maybe at building big projects. It is a special skill.
That's nice about Sebring. A podium with sparking wine and they take a picture. Just a lot of hooooey. I always liked the victory laps in the NE. Sort of a beautiful way to meld with someone. Now that was special for us just plain racers. In the early days my wife would carry to the grid a pink small stool-looking thing that would fit around all the crap in the passengers side so she could be comfortable and feel safe on her victory laps. That would never fit with the TV scheduling needed for the majors (note: always spelt with lower case)
As far as Homestead, that's a conundrum. A double national run between Xmas and new years the year before. Never done before but it sure sounds like the South FL folks got screwed out of their std post new years weekend. Another reason to hate rovals. My guess is participation by out of towners is going to be much lower, really only those who can plan an Xmas and new years around FL. My guess is that it will be lower with locals as those with families usually have stuff to do (unless these racers have already trained their families:)
I'm going though


peterzekert":ui1lcame said:
Harold Flescher":ui1lcame said:
.... In SED, ...., there are only 4 nationals (3 doubles) in 2013, and as I remember, all are rationals..
Click to expand...

Harold,
I wanted to check on Florida and this Majors thing before I thought about traveling down. Sebring is a Majors event. According to Butch Kummer he signed the contract with Central Florida Region last Friday.

Homestead, the week before is not a Majors. WHAT's going to happen at Homestead DEC 28-30. ARE they going to get any participation??

Peter
Click to expand...
 
National, in withholding the particulars of the "Majors" race events, is putting the Regions behind the eight ball.
RMDiv only has 3 racing regions - two of which will have only one event that could be a "Majors." Our planning for the 2013 season is not settled other than when we will race. The "Invitational" event we has was poorly attended - ProdCars were the biggest group - SRFs has 3 on Sat and 4 on Sun (because a ProdCar broke on Sat). The event damaged the divisional program and if National hadn't guaranteed the balance sheet would have been disastrous to the Region.

Our drivers weren't thrilled by the restricted classes available and the "Showcase" scheduled to 'make-up' for the difference was cancelled for lack of participation - cost to the Region - track deposit - one day's rental - a fiscal disaster for a small region - put the club racing budget deep in the red.
 
When I think of this "Majors" plan I get a picture in my head of Slim Pickens riding the Nuke in the movie Dr Strangelove. Yelling the whole way YEE-HA. As we all pass into oblivion.
Chris
 
Since they said that one can earn points for the Run-offs by running Regionals, why are regions still planning on running Rationals? Aren't the costs higher to run a Rational? Lower costs = lower entry fees.
 
I think that it is time that Nationals went away. It is failing.
There is no other sport(exp Golf) where you only have a few entrants, authorized to qualify.
Many of our club racers have other lives .
If you want the fastest drivers, it should be open qualifying, with maybe 3 races prior .
Time to move on with the times. IMHO. MM
 
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on what we've seen thus far:
- I totally agree with Brian. "Nationals" has meaning to me that comes from its rich history. "Majors" just doesn't bring out the same feeling. History is a big part of what makes the club great. When corporations drop a name and replace it with a different name "vega chevette cobalt" its because the old name had earned itself a black eye and the "brand" had become a loser. I don't feel that's the case with nationals. Topeka must feel otherwise. Does this mean they're out of touch, or I have rose colored glasses?

- The devil is in the details. With the limited detail we have the program could be a hit or a flop and still fit within what we've heard so far. Announcing this before it was fleshed out was a mistake. It invites speculation and speculation leads to unmet expectations. Speaking for NEDIV, if this results in dropping Nelsons, Pocono, and NHMS from the national/majors calendar and leaving the rest, I'll be thrilled. If it results in the only "greater than regional" event in NEDIV being WGI, I will be upset. Summit Point, although technically in NEDIV, is 7 day camel journey from the New England area.

- There is a meaningful difference between national and regional racing. Some folks might not see it, and thus they rally against it. But those people are never the people that run predominantly nationals. They're people that run mostly regionals. So its people who are not involved in nationals who campaign against them. One would hope that the club leadership can understand the context of the input it receives.

- Butch seems to "get it". In both my conversations with him and my interpretations of what's been done thus far, his positive influence is obvious.

- I like it that the Board is willing to try things. But I wish they would have reigned it in a bit and gone for a more intermediate solution rather than a complete remake/rename. Maybe just assuming financial control and evolving the program rather than turning it on its ear.

- Runoffs qualification via regionals makes no sense to me. It will cannibalize entries from the majors and the only value I can see that it adds is for folks to travel less. Sure, that saves a few dollars, but it further dilutes the status of the runoffs and the majors. I thought the idea was to create a system where the difference between regionals and majors was greater.

-Kyle
 
This all starts in 2014 right? I thought things were going to remain the same for 2013. If they are changing things for 2013 then I need to stop all plans for spending money on the car until they release full details of the program. Why spend money on a toy that I wont be able to use the way I want to use it? If things are changing in a way that drives costs of qualifying for the runoffs up ie long tows and out of state races then I will be out. I don't mind change, but I like to know where things are going. Im glad they have put this out there now, so I can wait until they get this figured out. Then, I can figure out if it is for me or not.
 
little bill":mnwii6pe said:
This all starts in 2014 right? I thought things were going to remain the same for 2013.
Click to expand...

Some facets are going to be incorporated for 2013. Changes have been made from the 2012 plan for 2013. There are now four 'conferences'. Some details are still in the process of being resolved. See the changes here: http://sccamajors.com/

I'm learning this the hard way as my wife just volunteered to be the Northern Conference Coordinator. So as things clear up, I'll report what I find out.

Dayle
 
Looks like every year the BoD just throws stuff against the wall and sees what sticks. Or doesn't.

Have any of them ever studied economics and the laws of supply and demand?? :think: Judging by what comes out every year, I think not. National racing is very simple, IMHO. Reduce the supply (Runoffs invites), and the demand will go up. That demand will translate into national race entries. Reduce the supply of national races (via a cap per division) and demand per race goes up again.

Seems simple enough.

But then again there would be no need for a massive marketing program to convince racers they 'need' this new system, create new positions to 'manage' the program, and spend the members' money on advertising it. Not to mention they now have to spend countless hours on working out the 'kinks' in the new program.

Try running a for-profit business this way and see how far it gets you....

MC
 
As suggested many times before, a change in Run-Offs format may be warranted.

I attended a Regional at Blackhawk a few weeks ago that scheduled as follows:

Saturday:
15 minute practice
9 lap race (gridded by practice times)
9 lap race (gridded by race #1 times)

Sunday:
9 lap race (gridded by race #2 times)
18 lap trophy race (gridded by race #3 times)

Only 5 race groups, but ran very smoothly. Lots of track time; final grid pretty well sorted by final race.

If the Run-Offs were scheduled similarly, and a 110 % rule ENFORCED, it would be a more realistic "Championship". (110% is at least 16 seconds per lap) Apply the 110% to the best time of the week. "Also-rans' may be discouraged from entering, but it is a "Championship" race, isn't it?

I sense that racers want a competitive field, and Topeka wants high entry numbers.

RJS
 
Ron,
I think your last sentence sums up the conundrum. However, you forget that Topeka also wants sponsorship money, which it will get more from the new majors. A few years ago I did an analysis that showed that Topeka got, if I remember correctly, something like $150k from the track to whom they award the contract. Ergo each and every racer is paying that much more for a registration fee that gets right back to Topeka. So we racers pay whatever it costs to do the racing, dues, the entry fee and essentially another $150k or whatever it is these days goes to the folks that organize our sport, and now we get to run majors for which SCCA gets exactly how much from the sponsors? There may be an SCCA solo program, a rally program, a rallycross program, pro racing, etc within SCCA, but the bottom line is that club racing pays for all of these, certainly for all of the indirect infrastructure which allows the others to survive. How positive am I about this? Well, if club racing disappears, all of the others disappear. If all of the others disappeared, club racing would be there just the same (maybe a little cheaper).

R. J. Sorensen":vzk2aeat said:
As suggested many times before, a change in Run-Offs format may be warranted.

I attended a Regional at Blackhawk a few weeks ago that scheduled as follows:

Saturday:
15 minute practice
9 lap race (gridded by practice times)
9 lap race (gridded by race #1 times)

Sunday:
9 lap race (gridded by race #2 times)
18 lap trophy race (gridded by race #3 times)

Only 5 race groups, but ran very smoothly. Lots of track time; final grid pretty well sorted by final race.

If the Run-Offs were scheduled similarly, and a 110 % rule ENFORCED, it would be a more realistic "Championship". (110% is at least 16 seconds per lap) Apply the 110% to the best time of the week. "Also-rans' may be discouraged from entering, but it is a "Championship" race, isn't it?

I sense that racers want a competitive field, and Topeka wants high entry numbers.

RJS
Click to expand...
 
Make it easier to go to Nats, more will go. That is marketing 101.
Make more hoops or more cost, less will bother. MY prediction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top