Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

[rphillips]

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't come up here before and to be honest I haven't thought about it enough to provide input but the SCCA is asking for feedback on new Runoffs Qualifications Rules for 2011 and beyond which can be found in the Sep Fast Track but I have copied and pasted the language for convenience.

SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA BOARD OF DIRECTORS | Aug. 23, 2010
The Board of Directors seeks member input on the following proposal regarding
the National Club Racing program and the National Championship Runoffs. Please
provide input to this proposal through http://www.crbscca.com/.
Directionally, the Board believes unanimously that, going forward, the National
Championship Runoffs should be an event that showcases the “Best of the Best.” In
reviewing past and current criteria and operations of the event, the Board recognizes
that, while the event continues to provide excellent competition and a worthy platform
to crown Champions, the event has focused on widespread inclusion of late instead
of the “Best of the Best” concept.
With this in mind, the Board proposes the below criteria for Runoffs invitations
beginning with the 2011 season.
Qualifications for Runoffs
- Must start 4 races/2 in Division
- Must finish 4 races regardless of Division
- Assuming participation levels have been met, a driver has three ways to earn a Runoffs invitation. A driver must meet
at least one of these three criteria to receive an invitation. They are:
1. Drivers finishing in the top three of their Division in their class in the current season.
§ Places far greater importance on the Divisional Championships and local National races
2. Drivers finishing in the top 50% of the Nation-wide point standings in the current season
§ Example: 100 drivers score points in a class in the current season, the top 50 will receive an invitation
§ Rewards drivers that may not have made the top three in their Division but have proven that they are
among the “Best of the Best” by scoring high in the Nation-wide points.
§ This percentage could be adjusted in the future to become more exclusive. This percentage would
be set prior to the beginning of the National racing season and held throughout that season.
3. Drivers scoring enough Nation-wide points that would have placed them in the top 50% of the previous year’s
standings for that class.
§ Example: 100 drivers score points the previous year, with the 50th place driver scoring 35 points. Any
driver scoring 35 points in the current season will receive an invitation.
§ This will give drivers who race early in the year (SE, SW, SP) a defined point level to earn an
invitation since these drivers will not be able to predict that early in the season if their effort would
result in a top-50% finish.
- Classes may have a cap on the number of race starters based on track length.
o Cars may need to qualify in order to take the green flag for the race.
Additionally, the Board proposes to change the Runoffs qualifying minimum from 120% to 115% of the pole time
o Requires a higher standard of performance at the Runoffs

My question is, how do we see the ranking of all the drivers in our class that have received National Points? I don't think I have ever seen such a list. It would be interesting to see how these rules would have affected this years RunOffs if they were in place for this year.

Ray

[Dave Gomberg]

Points are here: http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=91

Dave

[rphillips]

Thanks Dave!

Ray

[problemchild]

Is this a joke?

[FV80]

Don't have a CLUE what you mean by "joke", but I see it as a GREAT step in the right direction as opposed to allowing ANYONE who finishes 4 races an invite.
Steve, FV80

[problemchild]

Seems kind of complicated.

What is wrong with X finishes, Y starts in division, top z positions in division points, with atleast W points.

Seems like they are over-compensating for stupid rule for 2010 Runoffs qualification. Lots of numbers for people deemed not capable of measuring intake manifolds without a go-no go guage

[FV80]

Seems kind of complicated.

What is wrong with X finishes, Y starts in division, top z positions in division points, with atleast W points.
...

Nothing .. it worked quite well for YEARS. But THAT wasn't offered as an option by the CRB in this FT. Feel free to propose your (retro) alternative.
SD

[hardingfv32-1]

Oh dear.... Change! Change can be so complicated.

These are very good ideas that are well thought out to cover a number of issues that the CRB thought needed addressing.

Brian

[problemchild]

If you look at the entry list for the Runoffs, I see the regular crowd. Any slugs I recognize have been going for years under various formats. I am probably bottom of the barrel in terms of deserving to be there .... yet I scored 20 pts in the toughest division in the country and would presumably qualify under the new format.

It is a nice idea but will have no actual effect. This is just a PR move to try to overcome the recent years which are perceived as being Runoff expansion for financial motivation.

If they want to affect change .... enforce a 115% or less rule and black flag anyone when they fall 1/2 lap behind the leader in the race. Having lapped cars racing with the leaders is embarassing in a Championship race. Crashing with them (like last years FF race or Mad Dog in the 87 FV race) is significantly detrimental to any prestige factor.

If SCCA is just doing a PR job, surely they could write a rule in a line or two.

[Dave Gomberg]

Seems kind of complicated.

What is wrong with X finishes, Y starts in division, top z positions in division points, with atleast W points.
...

Nothing .. it worked quite well for YEARS. But THAT wasn't offered as an option by the CRB in this FT. Feel free to propose your (retro) alternative.
SD

Just to be clear: the Runoffs qualification changes were not authored by the CRB, but rather the Board of Directors.

Dave

[SR Racing]

If they want to affect change .... enforce a 115% or less rule and black flag anyone when they fall 1/2 lap behind the leader in the race.

Excellent idea that should be enforced. (at least in the Run-Offs) Not sure about the 1/2 lap thing, since a spin could do that to someone and I wouldn't want to begrudge them a finish. But a race being decided by back markers is stupid. Competitors should be harshly advised to let the leaders by when they end up in that position.

[P-2 Mark]

Competitors should be harshly advised to let the leaders by when they end up in that position[/quote]

I agree with Jim on this since only the best should be racing and no one should be lapped!

Mark

[brian]

Traffic and back markers are all part of the skill sets required for driving excellence. In reality, 120 to 115 is not really a big change. Did we even have someone that slow? I like the changes and am especially pleased they have addressed the excess class situation and reinacted the 2.5 rule. We have several classes at this year's Runoffs that may not even have enough cars on track to establish a national champion and they're taking time from everyone else.

[problemchild]

It would be nice if people chose to park their cars when 3 miles behind the leader in less than 50 miles.

I applaud the attempt to increase the standard but it just seems like a smokescreen. 99% of the same people will still be there but now we will have extensive qualification procedures requiring charts and data study to qualify those people. These proposed standards are an attempt to combat the greedy Runoffs expansion perception that is common.

I would much rather see SCCA people put their energies into repairing the National Club Racing scene than processing Runoff entries. Somebody will be writing software and updating databases to facilitate that processing. I just think it is a waste of time for a very brief PR swing.

[Matt King]

I agree with Greg that this looks like a PR move that will have little actual effect, although this year it certainly would have eliminated any possibility of me entering the Runoffs. I guess that makes me the poster child for everything that is wrong with the club. I should probably be ashamed of myself for having the gall to enter this prestigious event, but I'll do my best to stay out of y'alls way.

BTW, wasn't about half the field half a lap behind the leader at last year's Runoffs?

[hardingfv32-1]

The club is trying to improve the national program. These is not a PR project. In the first part of this thread it is clearly stated what broad issues they are addressing. No solution is going to satisfy everything that might be an issue with the Runoff entry system. You have to balance the cost of small high quality field vs a less restrictive entry system with slower competitors.

The world is NOT watching so we do not have to worry about embarrassing ourselves with the choices we make. The goal is to come up with an entry system that attracts the most competitors.

Brian

[Matt King]

The proposal is still basically a participation based entry system that doesn't guarantee a best of the best field. If the goal is truly to create the highest quality field in each class, then the SCCA should go impose stricter qualifying at the Runoffs. Invite everyone but only the top X percent of each class makes it to the final championship race based on qualifying time. Of course in most classes it would be difficult to build a field of more than 10 cars if only the top half advanced.

I think the best thing the club could do to strengthen the National program would be to drastically reduce the number of classes that it is comprised of. Rather than the current anemic 2.5 cars per national threshhold, it should be at least five. That would automatically cut the number of Runoffs eligible classes in half or more and would free up enough time in the schedule to reformat the Runoffs to a more attractive three- or four-day event. If the goal is to recreate the prestige of national racing and the Runoffs, the best way to do it is to consolidate the best drivers into fewer classes. If you want to compete for a National championship, you would need to participate in one of those select classes. The rest of the classes revert to regional status, which would fit well into the experiments going on in some divisions to combine regional and national cars into one race group anyway.

[hardingfv32-1]

The overriding goal is to increase the participation in National racing.

Now if a "best of the best" is a real draw for the national program, then fine. We have to balance this with a probable increase in overall event costs if we have an event with fewer participants. Is that going to be a negative?

Fewer classes is tricky. We know we will lose competitors with fewer classes. Many are at a age where they will quit before they will master a new class. And are we certain that fewer classes will draw in a net gain of competitors to make the gamble practical.

The answers just don't jump out at you.

Brian

[brian]

It's always true that you can't please everyone. Most of the endangered classes are relatively new ones and who knows what the ages of the drivers are. SCCA had a strong interest in preserving their market for the Enterprise car and finding homes for retired Speed pro cars. That's why the rules got changed for the national classes; in the hope of growing the new classes. FE, ST, STU. Not only did these classes not grow very much, but the dissent regarding the rule change was very loud. As a result of this displeasure, they returned to the original 2.5 rule.

The decline of national racing is only a symptom of a greater trend affecting all of SCCA. I think we will see a trend to eliminate the distinction of national and regional and have one form of amateur road racing. There are a couple of "test" weekends going on as we speak. The race at MIller Motorsports park was a test nat/reg.

Frankly, a simple program would be to allow all classes be eligible for the Runoffs. Only the most popular top X number of classes could go and the top 50% of those classes in each region would qualify. If your region had 50 cars, 25 could go. If you ran in a class with two cars, then one would go. This idea would limit the number of classes at the Runoffs, increase participation at the local level and provide a competitive element to assure that the best of the best would qualify. It would reduce expensive travel as well and for those who like to travel, a certain number of out of region races could be counted.

[remmers]

i'm very much more in favor of brian's idea just above .also, i kinda think the 120% to 115% of pole time is a little silly, unless they're having issues with lapped traffic in other classes causing unsafe conditions.

[cendiv37]

Do you realize how much slower 120% is? A rule that might actually have a real effect on who qualified be about 110%, maybe less.

At RA a Vee running 120% of the best qualifying time would be at about 3:12 (a slow drivers school time or a mediocre lap in the rain). In a 13 lap race, someone running 120% would be lapped twice during the race. Is this the national championship or is just an SCCA convention?

The problem is actually worse in combined class races during the regular season when you get fast cars driven slowly running the same lap times as the leaders in another, slower class, and racing them. I can tell you this is no fun. No fun at all. Hopefully setting a higher standard for the Runoffs would have a trickle down effect to nationals throughout the year.

Maybe this incredibly large margin is necessary to keep entries up so SCCA racing can survive. Maybe it will be the reason some of us give up on SCCA and go vintage racing. When I started out there was a healthy regional program in Cendiv and few would consider moving up to national racing until they were reasonably successful at the regional level. It's very different now... Tough choices in tough times.

[remmers]

well, i suppose my point would be that if they qualified under the rules that they're one of the top X% drivers in the nation, would they not be fast enough that a rule like that would be a moot point?

[FV80]

well, i suppose my point would be that if they qualified under the rules that they're one of the top X% drivers in the nation, would they not be fast enough that a rule like that would be a moot point?

What would make you think that the top 90% (?) of drivers would be capable of being "that" fast?? Keep in mind that the current rule set excludes virtually NO ONE. And the one for next year is just a small stepping stone. There are several areas of the country (and it varies from year to year) where you can be 3rd or 4th in class every event - amass significant points and still get lapped twice every race (by the FV leader). *OR* you might finish 1st or 2nd and BOTH of you be slower than Christmas . THAT is the point of this entire thread...

Steve, FV80

[smsazzy]

If the goal is to increase competition, then there is no point in having the qualification be based on division points. Anyone can rack up points by going to lots of races and choosing races where there is less competition. Fact is, if Fernando Alonso decided to come run a Vee at the runoffs, he would be in the top 1, 2 or 3 drivers on the track. (presumably) But what if he only completed 4 races? Racked up his 48 points and called it quits for the year. Compare this to someone else in his division who scored 7 times in third place. Their 49 points (I believe a 3rd is 7 points) would actually beat the driver who is arguably the best in the world. If you wanted the best competition, you can't leave that guy out.

Case in point, I am ahead of the following people in the national point standings, none of which I think I could actually beat at the runoffs this year:
Bruce Livermore (started on the front row last year)
Brian Jennerjahn (Finished 3rd last year)
Stephen Dreizler (Podium finish at 08 Runoffs)

The only way to actually have the top drivers there is to enforce a qualifying rule. Those outside X % of the pole sitter don't race.

That said, until you have gone to the runoffs for the first time and had you A$$ handed to you on a platter, I would not recommend being so flippant about how ridiculous it is that people are 3 or 4 seconds off the pace of the pole sitter. If it was easy, everybody could do it.

[FV80]

To follow up on Bruce's post above....
A driver @ 110% is taking approx 10% longer to get around the track (ANY track) - that means that he will get lapped in "about" 10 laps. Add to that, that drivers running that slowly are often well off their FASTEST lap on the average and it gets worse pretty fast. The pole sitter and most of the top runners can be expected to be able to turn within 1-2% of their fastest lap on most laps (barring traffic issues). I would expect a driver running at 120% to be more like 5%-10% SLOWER than *HIS* fastest lap most of the time (barring CAR issues during qualifying).
Steve, FV80