Runoffs Qualification Changes (SportsCar Feb '10)

[Fos]

Anybody read page 14?

Does that mean we don't need any points at all to qualify? Just 'finish' for Nationals? Does that also mean the entry list is first come first served or will we have to have a qualifying races instead of qualifying sessions?

Lowering the bar to gain entries is one thing (didn't it use to be top 6 per division before 1993?). Removing it is another. Anybody else see a problem or advantage with this? Not that I'm even thinking nationals at this point, I'm just seeking opinions.

TTFN
Fos

[problemchild]

Mark,

You need to think in terms of revenue generation. Eighty percent of the classes are under-prescribed. Road America can handle race groups that are double the size of most tracks. This is merely expansion.

Unfortunately, like any expansion, you add to the bottom. What is missing, IMO, is a minimum performance standard. The current one is too large and is never inforced. Invite anyone with 4 races, just make sure they are within 4-5% of the lead cars and blackflag them before they get lapped. in FV, 5% would be 8+ seconds per lap.

Cheers!

[Matt King]

Maybe SCCA could add to the top or at least the middle of the field if they revised the basic formula of the Runoffs. The current drawn-out schedule is a turn off to many potential entrants. Shortening up the qualifying and adding more actual racing, like heat races to determine final grid position, could go along way toward improving the event IMO. I am planning to try to attend the Runoffs this year primarily because it's 37 miles from my house, so I want to take advantage while it's close. Plus, I can actually sleep in and go home early on some of those days that are jam-packed with one 25-minute track session.

[Fos]

I actually thought of a different problem. With less of a runoffs requirement, the divisional championships will mean less as well, if anything.

It just means everyone can now run just 4 nationals and they are all set. I think this would hurt class participation, not help. Or, maybe, we just have 4 nationals per division per season. We're heading that way anyway and maybe that makes financial sense as well all around. For the racers and for the club.

[brian]

All good points guys, especially Greg's. It is felt that only SRF and Spec Maita will be the only classes effected. Most other classes qualify by making the minimums already. Tow money has been a financial looser for many years( it takes a lot more money to win top three than it pays). Truth be known this will reduce participation and continue the decline of the region's willingness to schedule nationals. The stand alone national is almost nonexistent and this change will only make matters worse. Hah but that's the future either way. Eventually, I see the two levels in SCCA merging.

[Matt King]

Eventually, I see the two levels in SCCA merging.

Probably a separate discussion, but I really can't see how the split makes any sense in the current financial and participation reality of amateur racing. In this era of rising costs and declining participation, the regions should be doing everything they can to consolidate expenses and fill the fields at fewer, better attended events. But it will take action from the National office to reorganize the program. The biggest issue would seem to be that there is a gap between many National racers who want slower paced events with sessions spread out across multiple days and regional racers who want more track time.

[problemchild]

With an abundance of tracks, and competitors, the Northeast and Great Lakes area has continued to have segregated Regional and National competition with quite different levels of cost, preparation, commitment, and competitive level .... despite most of the country combining the two levels.

Unfortunately, the 2010 scheduling in NEDIV, GLDIV, and CENDIV, particularily Nationals, will probably bring that to an end. This is understandable, as organizing Regions are so afraid of losing their shirts, they are being very passive. Fewer events, poorly spread chronologically and geographically, strange SCCA Runoff policies, and the state of the economy, is really making the National racing process a tougher sell. I can see more and more people selecting local races, whether Regional or National. I do think the organizing Regions who fight for good dates at good tracks, and run good events, will be rewarded. The more passive organizing groups will have the "I told you so" result. I think people will still travel for good events!

[brian]

Great points again Greg. Out here in the west regions don't really compete with one another. Too far apart I think since they never share tracks. As a retired accountant, I'm hard pressed to figure out why regions need so much revenue. I know track rentals are getting higher every year but the fees National charges aren't that high. I think we've made the whole process too complicated and the costs have risen accordingly.