U.S. Majors Tour to Replace SCCA National Racing by 2014

R

RonInSD

Well-known member
http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=51181


Sports Car Club of America Revamps Road Racing Program
U.S. Majors Tour to Replace SCCA National Racing by 2014

TOPEKA, Kan. (Oct. 18, 2012) – Sports Car Club of America’s Board of Directors announced today the most significant change to its amateur road racing program in 50 years. Following the 2013 season, “National” racing will be phased out, with the U.S. Majors Tour serving as the top level of a two-tier SCCA Club Racing program in 2014.

“As the U.S. Majors Tour gains momentum, it will take its natural position as the premier level of competition within SCCA’s amateur road racing program,” SCCA Chairman Jerry Wannarka said. “By 2014, amateur road racing will have two levels of racing – the U.S. Majors Tour and Regional Racing, with the Majors program focused on clustering the best and toughest competition and Regionals focused on local racing programs.”

SCCA’s amateur road racing program has been tiered for more than half a century, with “National” racing serving as the top level.

“Over the years, SCCA’s ‘National’ program has evolved across the country into something with little cohesion,” Wannarka continued. “With only a handful of General Competition Rules requirements separating a National event from a Regional event, these two programs have morphed, in many cases, into one type of event that is managed entirely at the local level.

“The changes over the next year will take the premier events, geared toward our National Championship drivers, and provide a better link through a series managed by the SCCA National Headquarters. For non-Majors events, this change will remove the limitations that holding a National event have historically placed on our Regions, providing the flexibility needed to customize their Regional Racing programs.

“The focus of the Regional Racing format is on the experience of getting on track and racing wheel-to-wheel. The U.S. Majors Tour takes that same experience and focuses on the intense competition of Championship racing within the SCCA.”

A path to the National Championship Runoffs will exist through both the Majors and Regional programs.

For 2013, that path includes Majors Conference Championships (comprised solely of Majors events) and the National and Divisional Point Championships (including all Majors and regular National events).

Details of the 2014 path are still being determined, although the Board has committed for paths to exist for Runoffs-eligible classes through both the U.S. Majors Tour and Regional Racing.

“The goal is to have a very direct path to the Runoffs through the U.S. Majors Tour,” Wannarka said. “But, there will continue to be an additional path through local events that a driver might support throughout the year. It is important for both the U.S. Majors Tour and the Regional Racing programs to thrive. The Runoffs need to support this initiative with a qualification path for each.”

Details on Championship point structures, 2013 events and Runoffs criteria will be announced in the coming weeks.

Additional information is available at http://www.sccamajors.com.
 
First I'm sure too quick reaction....

So they are taking a 50 year old two tier system and replacing it with a new two tier system? Doesn't seem too ground breaking. Like renaming the Taurus a "Five Hundred", that worked out good.
 
The last I heard there were only going to be 2 Majors races in the NE and one of those was Summit Point which is just barely out of the SE. This is a shame since the NE is traditionally a large producer of national entries.

EDIT - I am told that this has been addressed. good news.
 
ennored":3dehd7uk said:
First I'm sure too quick reaction....

So they are taking a 50 year old two tier system and replacing it with a new two tier system? Doesn't seem too ground breaking. Like renaming the Taurus a "Five Hundred", that worked out good.
Click to expand...

I think this is great... The current program has gotten way out of hand with the title of Rational seemingly being put on every race in a Region, its so far gone I doubt it could be pulled back at this point. The supply of these Rationals is way beyond the demand in most parts of the country. I know I have no reason to even consider a single event out of Division, or even to another Region within my Division, based on the number of events I can run. Also consider the cost the massive number of National/Rational events represents to current and potential contingency providers. I would bet in the last ten years companies like Hoosier and Goodyear have doubled contingency payouts, but not tires sales.

Seems like a great way bring National racing back to what it once was. :applause:

Hopefully this also cures another problem, rookies on a permit or Regional license in the middle of National races that are not even in their class.
 
My gut reaction too is that I like it. Growing the club has to happen at the regional level, with doubles and rationals cannibalizing an ever shrinking population of traveling-circus national drivers is not working.

At least here in MiDiv I have been very happy to see a shift in momentum toward solving the underlying problem - bringing in new drivers - and doing so at the regional level (and I mean regional with a small "r").

I will cross my fingers that this doesn't turn into another case of big ruckus resulting in SCCA backpedaling. For better or worse let's try a new plan and stick with it.
 
My gut reaction is it sounds OK on paper but I'm not sure it will produce the desired results. Costs are what is killing SCCA racing and it seems like this plan will only increase costs. One of the reasons the regions went to Rationals and doubles is low car count when holding a Regional or National only race. Now we want to make it so we have to have "Majors" or Regional only weekends which again means low car counts especially in the smaller divisions. Running the Majors means long tows and increased costs. Running more than major on will probably require tows of 600 miles or greater (at least in the Midwest). In my experience towing that far more than doubles the cost for the weekend not to mention that the Majors will probably all be single events so you get less track time at more expense. If we had plenty of people with big budgets it would be one thing but the core of SCCA racing are in the shrinking middle class and things are not going to get better any time soon no matter who gets elected. It also sounds like the National office is going to run the Major events also and given their past record at running the pro events I'd think there is room for concern there. I'll withhold judgment until I see the details and schedule but at this point I'm skeptical.
 
I'll be happy to see less races and more competition. I think this may solve this issue. I know most of you didn't get to run a majors race this year but with the new plan you'll see more cars in class and better competiton like I saw this year. We're all traveling hours to get to a track anyway, I'd rather go and race than just go collect a few points just to get ready for the runoffs. This will make a win mean something and return the "National" program to what it should be. Here in the Kansas/Kansas City region we're already talking about the local regional events and how we can combine not only regional racing but include more pdx, solo 1, time trials, vintage, etc into a good extravaganza regional weekend. Tons of fun!

:applause: I applaud this plan.
 
The Lone Ranger rides again. Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear...................
..............when the rich man drove the sport of motor racing

Hopefully some of the other oldies will zero this in for me.
My memory is:
1. The original natl championship process was to race in enough nationals all across the US to win the championship. This was rich man's racing, a dozen or more races across the USA. The late '50s and early '60s as I remember. There was one National Champion per class. Although many normal people competed, like Randy Canfield, the amount of travel particularly meant it was primarily a rich man's game.
2. Then they added the runoffs to determine natl champ.
2.a. - As I remember, at the beginning a lot of travel was required to qualify although probably not a lot more than combining a couple (or 3) of division's worth of nationals. As I remember in the early days there was a class national champion and a runoffs national champion. In the early days there were 3 then 5 people invited from each division, period. Not many of those wanting to go got to go, and there was real competition all year for those few spots in most classes. Getting to the Runoffs was very special. Correction anyone?
2.b. - Over time we went to the division champion and national/runoffs champion by going to the division focus. This is basically what we have had until today. There was one National Champion/Runoffs Champion. This was a normal if expensive way to go. I ran this system from the Northeast and Southeast from 1994 through 2010. An expensive sport if you want to win, but doable by most normal (if mentally deranged) people. There were enough nationals to qualify within doable driving distances in most divisions to pretty well limit most races to a 3 day weekend; ergo 6 - 3 day weekends. That plus a 10 day Runoffs was easily complainable as too much, but there were lots of us with normal jobs that still did it, and there was one SCCA National Champion in each class
3. So we have started to see the new direction SCCA is going - literally to two national champions. One, called the majors (national) champion will undoubtedly come from the group of well-healed, and/or well-sponsored folks that can afford to have a car/crew carted around the country for the majors races to get to maximum points. There will be precious few of who I and most of us would be called normal people who could run more than a very few majors. The second is the Runoffs National Champion, run for by people who run the majors, and some other group who qualify through the regional route, but undoubtedly more points given for majors than other races.

So my take on this majors change is that it is driving the club away from us amateurs toward well-heeled and/or well-sponsored drivers. All of the advertising will be shifting toward majors drivers, etc. Maybe SCCA will make more money this way, but is it right fir most of us? Perhaps the biggest benefit is that one might be able to qualify for the runoffs with a lot of local races, maybe, when we really see the rules.
 
Where is this plan people are in favor of/against? I only read the announcement of plan coming in the weeks to come. Its not hard to get behind a concept of better races and more competition. Singles/doubles? What classes are "Runoff eligible"? Whats the path to the Runoffs Regionally? Where are the races? Entry fees? Contingencies? Will Topeka force a region to hold a "Major"? What is the Regions take on this? etc etc.
 
yup!
We wonder when the SCCA (Secret Car Club of America) gives us more than fluff. If they can say this now, how might it be possible that they don't have the details? The process sounds inane.
 
There were Majors presentations open for anyone to attend at the Runoffs last month. I had been skeptical about the program from what I heard at the beginning of the year, but I am getting more comfotable with the Majors program after attending the presentation/discussion. And no shrimp or cool aid was served there. Although I will probably have to travel a little further for National races, I expect better competion by concentrating drivers in fewer events.
 
Tom, for those of us who were not at the meetings can you expand on what you were presented? I can wait for the offical stuff too, no big deal yet.
 
I like it. It is a step towards SCCA racing, without the Regional National distinction. I could foresee regional only classes that are listed in the GCR such as the IT classes petitioning for runoffs entry.
As well as a track for runoffs approved classes to get to runoffs via the Regional racing route there needs to be some additionl incentive (contigency) at regionals or participation at these events could drop precipitously as many spend thier budget only following the Majors tour. Great for them and the tour, bad for regions and non majors events.

I won't apologize for Rationals. They were/are a great tool for regions to gain enough entries to break even. They proved we can coexist on the same track at the same time.
 
Harold Flescher":2c0pjtnd said:
The Lone Ranger rides again. Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear...................
..............when the rich man drove the sport of motor racing
Click to expand...
OK, Harold, I'll throw in a few dusty memories.

The only 'official' source that I know of for Runoffs historical matters is
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/12-club-mediaguide.pdf
As you can find on p. 17 of this guide, the earliest 'national championships' were determined by points earned at selected 'national' races around the country. An important element of this picture was that in that era SCCA had no presence on or near the west coast. Pretty much east of the Mississippi. I did not run this series per se. Way too much traveling. In 1963 a deal was negotiated with the California Sports Car Club to incorporate their Club into SCCA as a Region. This resulted in major changes in SCCA car prep rules to conform more closely with CSCC rules. Simultaneously, the Club began naming Divisional class champions, based on competitions within Divisions. Just a year later SCCA adopted a proposal to have an annual inter-divisional championship race, which became the Runoffs (under various names). The above media guide states that the first 2 years of these races did not produce National Champions. Could be; I don't remember. Pretty much semantics.

Thank you, Harold, for lumping me with 'normal people', although I would think that racing an SCCA LBC for 52 years would say otherwise.
 
Harold Flescher":3k14chsn said:
The Lone Ranger rides again. Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear...................
..............when the rich man drove the sport of motor racing

Hopefully some of the other oldies will zero this in for me.
My memory is:
1. The original natl championship process was to race in enough nationals all across the US to win the championship. This was rich man's racing, a dozen or more races across the USA. The late '50s and early '60s as I remember. There was one National Champion per class. Although many normal people competed, like Randy Canfield, the amount of travel particularly meant it was primarily a rich man's game.
2. Then they added the runoffs to determine natl champ.
2.a. - As I remember, at the beginning a lot of travel was required to qualify although probably not a lot more than combining a couple (or 3) of division's worth of nationals. As I remember in the early days there was a class national champion and a runoffs national champion. In the early days there were 3 then 5 people invited from each division, period. Not many of those wanting to go got to go, and there was real competition all year for those few spots in most classes. Getting to the Runoffs was very special. Correction anyone?
2.b. - Over time we went to the division champion and national/runoffs champion by going to the division focus. This is basically what we have had until today. There was one National Champion/Runoffs Champion. This was a normal if expensive way to go. I ran this system from the Northeast and Southeast from 1994 through 2010. An expensive sport if you want to win, but doable by most normal (if mentally deranged) people. There were enough nationals to qualify within doable driving distances in most divisions to pretty well limit most races to a 3 day weekend; ergo 6 - 3 day weekends. That plus a 10 day Runoffs was easily complainable as too much, but there were lots of us with normal jobs that still did it, and there was one SCCA National Champion in each class
3. So we have started to see the new direction SCCA is going - literally to two national champions. One, called the majors (national) champion will undoubtedly come from the group of well-healed, and/or well-sponsored folks that can afford to have a car/crew carted around the country for the majors races to get to maximum points. There will be precious few of who I and most of us would be called normal people who could run more than a very few majors. The second is the Runoffs National Champion, run for by people who run the majors, and some other group who qualify through the regional route, but undoubtedly more points given for majors than other races.

So my take on this majors change is that it is driving the club away from us amateurs toward well-heeled and/or well-sponsored drivers. All of the advertising will be shifting toward majors drivers, etc. Maybe SCCA will make more money this way, but is it right fir most of us? Perhaps the biggest benefit is that one might be able to qualify for the runoffs with a lot of local races, maybe, when we really see the rules.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are going that far back... More like ten or so years. In 2001 there was 27 or so Natl races, and over 600 cars at the Runoffs. If we can get back there seems like a win to me.
 
Does this mean we, the club, only cares about drivers of cars in the chosen classes and if you don't own one of those we no longer need or want your participation?
 
Jerry Oleson":135srmyn said:
Tom, for those of us who were not at the meetings can you expand on what you were presented? I can wait for the offical stuff too, no big deal yet.
Click to expand...

Jerry, some finalization of the plan was still taking place, but as I racall the featured class deal seams to have morfed into all national classes participating at all Majors Nationals, but featured classes will have some extra track time and a Qualifying Race. Thus a small class may not lose out from what they have now. There will be Majors divisions that will each have class champions based on events within that division. There was discussion about whether and/if so, how many out of division majors events could be included in these chamionships to help members who live near division boaders. And, as the announcment does clarify, SCCA in Topeka will as of 2014 determine which events will take place as Majors and work with the local regions for the scheduling. Also, there is some planned additional hype at the events and press releases to some well known publications so we will not be as secret of a car club.


jdh":135srmyn said:
Does this mean we, the club, only cares about drivers of cars in the chosen classes and if you don't own one of those we no longer need or want your participation?
Click to expand...
One big message from the presentation was that regions should continue with all their regional racing programs as they see fit. Since numbers wise those regional/area series and events serve more members, they are encouraged to continue what works locally.

From my perspective, I would prefer fewer national events over alot of "rationals" where the National drivers pay full cost entries and the few regional classes that are invited have a much lower event cost. That type of event excludes many local regional drivers just because it is a class restriced event. Also, the entry fees aimed at luring in addition entries to meet costs bothers me. I am sure many IT and SM drivers who take advantage of these rationals will not share my opinion. I find it really sad asking the race chair at a small event if the region even broke even.

I believe Greg Gauper was in the session I attended and may have some more specifics I missed.
 
Ranyd,
Far be it for me to call you really normal. My ticket goes back to 1962, but you did a lot more than me. I only call you normal in the sense that you had a real job and earned a salary, from which you took the time and money and preped your own car to go racing yourself. Like me and most others, we lived mostly normal lives and went racing. We didn't come from money that let us take the time and have the support to do it, nor could you call any of us well sponsored (however like you, I'm old enough to remember when there was a BL and they helped a little). My fear is that SCCA is headed back to a series that takes time and money (which most "normal" people don't have) in which to be really successful. With .what little I know, I fear that is what the majors are looking like

Randy Canfield":218hkl7y said:
Harold Flescher":218hkl7y said:
The Lone Ranger rides again. Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear...................
..............when the rich man drove the sport of motor racing
Click to expand...
OK, Harold, I'll throw in a few dusty memories.

The only 'official' source that I know of for Runoffs historical matters is
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/12-club-mediaguide.pdf
As you can find on p. 17 of this guide, the earliest 'national championships' were determined by points earned at selected 'national' races around the country. An important element of this picture was that in that era SCCA had no presence on or near the west coast. Pretty much east of the Mississippi. I did not run this series per se. Way too much traveling. In 1963 a deal was negotiated with the California Sports Car Club to incorporate their Club into SCCA as a Region. This resulted in major changes in SCCA car prep rules to conform more closely with CSCC rules. Simultaneously, the Club began naming Divisional class champions, based on competitions within Divisions. Just a year later SCCA adopted a proposal to have an annual inter-divisional championship race, which became the Runoffs (under various names). The above media guide states that the first 2 years of these races did not produce National Champions. Could be; I don't remember. Pretty much semantics.

Thank you, Harold, for lumping me with 'normal people', although I would think that racing an SCCA LBC for 52 years would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Seems like a similar result could have been accomplished by doing 2 simple things:

1. Cap the number of nationals in a division to 7 (allowing for one drop...if they're still counting best 6 towards divisional championships).

2. Invite the top 4 finishers in each division to the Runoffs.

Done.

The nationals now have more importance, and the number of entries/race goes up. Regions now have an incentive to hold nationals versus a disincentive. Also, the nationals later in the season become MORE important rather than less, and the regions don't take a bath if they're stuck with a later national. I can remember the Labor Day nationals as a kid being barn burners.

A ticket to the big dance now means something and brings back a little prestige to going to the Runoffs, let alone doing well.

But the above would be too simple, wouldn't it? :ask: And it doesn't require traveling outside your own division to qualify (if you're good). It also eliminates the confusing "two champions" outcome.

MC
 
Ah Ha! You fool. How could you possible take a position that favors the racer rather than the sponsors and mfgs? What are you smoking? Off with your scca sticker, go fly a plane.

Mark Coffin":1ue4gcd7 said:
Seems like a similar result could have been accomplished by doing 2 simple things:

1. Cap the number of nationals in a division to 7 (allowing for one drop...if they're still counting best 6 towards divisional championships).

2. Invite the top 4 finishers in each division to the Runoffs.

Done.

The nationals now have more importance, and the number of entries/race goes up. Regions now have an incentive to hold nationals versus a disincentive. Also, the nationals later in the season become MORE important rather than less, and the regions don't take a bath if they're stuck with a later national. I can remember the Labor Day nationals as a kid being barn burners.

A ticket to the big dance now means something and brings back a little prestige to going to the Runoffs, let alone doing well.

But the above would be too simple, wouldn't it? :ask: And it doesn't require traveling outside your own division to qualify (if you're good). It also eliminates the confusing "two champions" outcome.

MC
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top