runoffs participation?

[dsmithwc04]

Warning: Reid says it's too expensive, again. That horse is so well tenderized at this point it will melt in your mouth.

The Daytona/Indy reason is a big one. Which is an indicator the costs are unsustainable. If people have to take a year off in order to afford the year after, that isn't a good business model for SCCA.

As for the cars for sale, I did a little summary a month ago to see what class had a lower cost of entry for used cars. These are listed prices, not the sold price (if they sold, most haven't), but here is what I found.

• FF/Honda - Average $49,000.
• FF/Ford - Average $23,000
• FC/Zetec - Average $43,000
• FB - Average $41,000.
• P1/P2 - Average $40,000

Call me crazy, but $40k+ for a used car is not going to make SCCA boom with entries. At $23k, I bet there would be a whole lot more entries is those cars were competitive.

You forgot FE. One just sold for $20k but will need around $5k ($3300 rebuild from Enterprises plus a couple upgrades) put into it to be competitive again. Others are averaging $32k for Nationally Competitive cars.

[GT1Vette]

I've been hesitant to respond but WTF...

Personally I believe the time commitment severely limits the number of people willing to attend the Runoffs. In the past I've sent in proposals to essentially split it into two events (Gomberg called it the "4-1-4" plan) and recently submitted both 4-day and 5-day timelines for consideration by the BoD. You might remember the 2012 Runoffs had a "staggered" schedule where some classes did not need to arrive until Thursday and no class had to be on site more than five days to participate in all their SCCA-sanctioned sessions. In the post-event survey some people liked the format but a significant number (I recall it being almost 50%) said it no longer "felt like the Runoffs". In 2013 (the 50th) the event returned to the traditional format and has maintained that since.

Since most previous attempts to reduce the number of classes have failed (y'all might remember the proposal to combine FE & FM plus the more recent "Concorde Agreement" have died ugly deaths), the only way to reduce the number of days is combine classes at least for qualifying. And I really don't think we need four qualifying sessions, so my most recent proposal calls for qualifying on Wed & Thu, then races on Fri-Sun. This also means those racing on Sunday have two down days between their last qualifying session and their races, so I'm also working on a "2.5-2.5" plan where each class gets two qualifying sessions Wed thru Fri morning, then racing starts Friday afternoon. This plan would also have more races with two classes, so it comes down to how important it is for each class (even those with less than 10 entries) to have their own championship race.

As in most things regarding a national organization, there are no easy answers.

And to those that think the Runoffs is no longer an event, how many other races do you run that have competitors from all over the country? How many are broadcast live with professional announcers, and how many are covered by the national media in any way whatsoever? Finally, at how many other events can the winner say s/he is THE National Champion of their class? Yes, there is a lot of competition from other organizations/events, but the SCCA Runoffs is still a pretty cool event!

As always, YMMV...

[marshall9]

I was planning on going to Mid O this year.

Until the day after the NOLA Majors weekend. My Husband and I found out we were pregnant.

So yeah.. Until November I'm out of the racing business.

You guys have fun!

Meg Sauce-Hutton
SowDiv FF10

I heard first hand about some other racing plans within the Sauce family

[2BWise]

Finally, at how many other events can the winner say s/he is THE National Champion of their class? Yes, there is a lot of competition from other organizations/events, but the SCCA Runoffs is still a pretty cool event!

Does it still require a minimum of 10 drivers to crown a National champ? Half of the open wheel classes don't even have 10 registered.

[GT1Vette]

Does it still require a minimum of 10 drivers to crown a National champ?

That was true until this year. My understanding is that starting in 2016 all classes at the Runoffs will crown a National Champion regardless of the number of entries, but classes with less than 10 will be put on probation for the next year. If there are not at least 10 entries the following year then no National Champion will be crowned. I can't find it right now, but there might have been something about the class will no longer be Runoffs eligible after two successive years of less than 10 participants at the Runoffs.

Found it (3.7.3.C.2 in the September GCR):

A Runoffs-eligible class with fewer than 10 qualified drivers
entered who have participated in at least one on track session
at the current year’s Runoffs will name a National Champion
but subsequently be on probation for the following year’s
Runoffs. Should a class on probation at the Runoffs fail to have
a minimum of 10 qualified drivers enter and participate in at
least one on-track session the year it is on probation, that class
may run as a supplemental class but will not name a National
Champion.

[car7316]

Meh... Not sure about going soft... It's just all about bang for buck. I can do the VIR pro race at the end of September instead for half the cost, and get 3 times the track time against arguably a much better field and spend only 4 days away. Kind of a no brainer.

That's why you don't have much of a FF field, or an FC field for that matter. AND, I don't have to go through a "qualifying" process to do that event. The club needs to make the runoffs more accessible, condensed, cost effective, and meaningful.

[924RACR]

I do like the idea of condensing some of the qualifying, both # of sessions and # of classes on track at a given time...

[BeerBudgetRacing]

A Runoffs-eligible class with fewer than 10 qualified drivers
entered who have participated in at least one on track session
at the current year’s Runoffs will name a National Champion
but subsequently be on probation for the following year’s
Runoffs. Should a class on probation at the Runoffs fail to have
a minimum of 10 qualified drivers enter and participate in at
least one on-track session the year it is on probation, that class
may run as a supplemental class but will not name a National
Champion.

So I read this and it says to me "give up now.... don't wait"

It's a total disincentive. If a class goes on probation why would anyone even think about going the following year. It's a class killer....

And what are they going to do if FE ever falls into this?

What they should be doing is offering a 50% discount on entries plus tow money for any class that has fewer than 10 entries. Those classes only get 1 qualifying session on Thursday.
Reduces the cost to run it, participate, etc.

Then if no one shows you can stop CPR....

[kea]

Meh... Not sure about going soft... It's just all about bang for buck. I can do the VIR pro race at the end of September instead for half the cost, and get 3 times the track time against arguably a much better field and spend only 4 days away. Kind of a no brainer.

That's why you don't have much of a FF field, or an FC field for that matter. AND, I don't have to go through a "qualifying" process to do that event. The club needs to make the runoffs more accessible, condensed, cost effective, and meaningful.

It becomes "meaningful" when you must really need to qualify to attend. Which goes against your "more accessible".
Once they started allowing 10 cars per class, per division, going to the Run-Offs became just another race, that took all week to happen ! Nothing special there except the Motel bill.

[RSS]

It becomes "meaningful" when you must really need to qualify to attend. Which goes against your "more accessible".
Once they started allowing 10 cars per class, per division, going to the Run-Offs became just another race, that took all week to happen ! Nothing special there except the Motel bill.

The flip side being is it more meaningful to beat half a dozen guys who qualified or winning in a field of 30 cars who may not have had the money/time to qualify?

[f500racer]

I made the Runoffs again after being away for 11 years. My class has 15 cars (f5) which is 14 less than last time. I still think it's real cool to be participating and am really looking forward to the event. It's even cooler being mentioned in SportsCar.

I also live six miles from the track and will work half the day.....

[GT1Vette]

As Phil Creighton explained earlier, having to qualify for the Runoffs helps drive participation at the local region events. If you allow anyone that can fog a mirror to run the Runoffs, then there's less incentive to race (relatively) locally during the season and that hurts the regions.

And you can certainly interpret the 2016 version of "you need 10 cars to declare a champion" as "give up now", or you could read it as "Hey, I really want our class to survive so I need to get my buddies to show up at the Runoffs."

I firmly believe reducing the time commitment necessary to compete at the Runoffs will increase attendance, but we'll see if the BoD is even willing to put that possibility out for member input. The survey question would be simple:

"Will a five-day Runoffs format increase or decrease the probability you will attend the event?"

[John Nesbitt]

...

I firmly believe reducing the time commitment necessary to compete at the Runoffs will increase attendance, but we'll see if the BoD is even willing to put that possibility out for member input. The survey question would be simple:

"Will a five-day Runoffs format increase or decrease the probability you will attend the event?"

The big question in reducing to, for example, five days is: What do we throw overboard to make that happen?

Recall that the Club tried shortening by one day a few years ago, and got major pushback.

Are we wedded to a 24-class Runoffs? Is that just an artifact of the long-gone TV coverage days? Drop the smaller-subscribed classes?

Be careful what you ask for. As of this morning, four open wheel classes had single-digit entries, and one only 10.

No easy answers.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I also live six miles from the track and will work half the day.....

And location makes a big difference.....

[Purple Frog]

Looking at the numbers it appears that if one were to ignore formula cars then it would be easy to say the 2016 Runoffs will be successful. Something like over 600 entries.

Based on those numbers one could say that it is the formula classes that are falling apart.

On days i have long commutes to work I occasionally dial up GT1Vette to talk philosophy, weather, world events, and how fortunate he is to still be married to Harriet.

Today our conversation focused on formula car participation.

Butch took the high road. I on the other hand drove low.

I believe that we have sophisticated ourselves out of popularity.
Having worked near serious pro teams and Runoffs competitors for the past few years I now realize the level of sophistication of the front runners is mind boggling. Intense detailed data aquisition, being studied by serious engineers resulting in very educated adjustments for each session. No detail left out. Suspensions that are massaged for zero "sticktion". Wheel bearings checked every session. Shocks with high prices and incredible adjustibility.. with engineers that know how to adjust them. Bodywork massaged for the least drag. Tons of testing to determine aero packages. Gearboxes worked over to have the least drag. ($$) Each piece of the car specialized for its purpose.

Then, install the best drivers in the country. Drivers that can communicate with their engineers and adapt quickly changing their driving style to needed changes.

It is pure beauty to behold. I have been honored to be able to witness it.

But, it is expensive in both time and money to replicate. And... for the most part, a club guy working by himself in his garage can't compete. For one thing,when at the track there is not enough time for one guy to do it all between sessions. (I have heard pro teams sometimes complain the F2kCS schedule is too rigorous for them to everything done between sessions.) Between sessions the tires coming off have to be studied, tire decisions made, data downloaded, videos studied, decisions made, brakes gone through, shocks changed, springs changed, aero changed, fuel usage studied, fuel added, and repairs made. Some changes are seemingly minute. Never the less lots of changes and adjustments are told to the mechanics. If you aren't doing it all, you probably aren't a player. Besides, these are things that are being done by those with the skill and knowledge, not your next door neighbor that thought it would be fun to go to the races one weekend.

Add up the costs of engineers, mechanics, travel, lodging, food, and truckloads of tires and its easy to see these big teams spending $5K to $8K per weekend. Test days and private test days are a whole other expense. Nearly two weeks of runoffs budgeting is huge.

i read a lot of posts on Apexspeed. (understatement) I believe most posters are just basically amateur clubbies like myself that don't get close to achieving the levels of the top teams. There is nothing wrong with that. But, when the average clubbie enters an event he finds himself driving his ass off yet getting lapped in a 30 minute race by the big dogs.
Clubbies enter the Runoffs to be able to say they did. 15 years ago if a clubbie finished in the top 10 they earned serious bragging rights. The tide was changing way back then.

Today, less clubbies are willing to spend the time and money to just be able to say they were at the Runoffs. So, just the pointy end of the grid shows up.

FM: Way too clunky and vintage
FB: Way too sophisticated, maybe even too fast for the average guy
FA: A constantly moving confusing rule set, for cars with 1.5 hour motors.
FE: Never enough boost from Enterprises to get a footing. Should have been as strong as SRF


I also believe that the times have changed since the 70s. Back then you could die in motor racing. Now we have cars crashing into each other at 200 mph and the drivers getting out and waving to the crowd. In this environment i think a lot of potential drivers see formula cars as too dangerous. Not a lot of 'stuff' around the driver, no roll cage, fragile looking things. Even F1 is adding forward head protection next year.

Maybe the time has passed.

Vintage will grow for a while. And, select things for clubbies like Right Coast, North West, etc. But, from where i sit I don't see a future growth in serious formula car racing at the Major/Runoffs level.

OBTW... the front of the field is still showing up to the big events, it's the rear 2/3 of the field that has quit coming. What promoters call the "filler".

[BeerBudgetRacing]

How do you "DISLIKE" a post?

I'm not saying I disagree or that its wrong, but I certainly don't LIKE it

[924RACR]

I think the change in points structure has taken a lot of the teeth out of having to qualify - as opposed to where you used to have to actually beat enough guys to gather enough points.

Now I know how many points I'll get, guaranteed, if I finish on the podium... even if I'm DFL in class. I KNOW that if I make it to 2 Majors, I've easily got enough points to make the show already, and can just appear at a third and turn a wheel, I'm good.

But I guess if we're trying to get more driver to the Runoffs, that approach makes sense...

Ease of entry vs. significance of making it...

[Franklin Futrelle]

What does not help the open wheel numbers on any given weekend are the FA and P1 wankers who crash or break on the 1st lap of a session almost every single weekend in the Southeast. One reason i got out of the FM class was because we would pay for a test day....but what we reallyvpaid for was to watch some wealthy goober get his car towed out of the gravel. I went back to specracers because of this. 75 SRF at COTA a few years ago, no FCY in any session and nobone was lapped in the race. I think open wheel got 4 or 5 laps total in both races.

I also feel that scca is a reflection of the economy. When i was young there were tons of middle class families with a truck and 20 ft trailer and their young kids (ie my family) at the track. Now a days what 30-35 year old has disposable income to race. The ones who do seem to have enough money to park the FA in the gravel every session. The middle class is now racing with NASA... In fact im almost ready to hit the track with my new NASA Spec E30. We built a car to win a national chanpionship and we have 14k$ invested and our 28 ft triler will be the biggest one at the track.

[David Locke]

I think the issue is a lot simpler than all of this suggests. Of course cost is a factor, but the fact is that what excites/interests people changes over time. As the numbers have rapidly grown in SRF and SM, the numbers in the open wheel and prototype classes have declined. I don't like it, but it's reality. The people whose interest was piqued by open wheel and prototype cars have grown older and have begun moving on to other things. Many of the younger people coming in are interested in different kinds of cars. I think it's as simple as that.

[John LaRue]

David I pretty much agree. There remains a group of young persons who would have interest in SCCA's OW and P classes, but they are picked from the vine long before they become aware of this club. I have long advocated SCCA's direct involvement in karting but it falls on deaf ears.

At last year's convention there was a discussion about the Track Night events and their success. The speaker however noted that these participants were not being converted to club racers. Could it be that the PDX experience was good enough? As I see it in this day and age people in their 20-30's who haven't previously been involved in wheel to wheel racing are not likely to jump into the pool; a PDX type event is likely all they want or need. If we want new club racers we need to get the people who are already racing hence SCCA being involved in karting. Something of a cradle to grave type operation where they are introduced to motorsports through karting, graduate to club and pro and then retire into vintage. Nah, that would never work.

[GT1Vette]

Just because I like to deal with actual numbers rather than "rememories", I went back and updated my spreadsheet of Runoffs entries ("turned a wheel") by class. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll focus on open-wheel classes for the last five years (using pre-registration for 2016), then compare that to the numbers for 2005 (last Runoffs at Mid-Ohio):

FA - 8, 10, 14, 21, 11; 27
FB - 10, 20, 16, 21, 15; n/a
FC - 7, 11, 23, 11, 10; 34
FE - 9, 16, 11, 11, 15; n/a
FF - 16, 25, 26, 24, 20; 26
FM - 8, 9, 15, 15, 13; 25
FV - 40, 30, 32, 48, 36; 44

Locations, number of classes & total participants per year:

. 2016 - Mid-Ohio (28, 595)
. 2015 - Daytona (28, 572)
. 2014 - MRLS (27, 515)
. 2013 - Road Am 50th Runoffs (28, 686)
. 2012 - Road Am (29, 491)
. 2005 - Mid-Ohio (23, 704)

I'm not sure what those numbers show (other than a decreasing number of Runoffs attendees in the open-wheel classes compared to ten years ago), but at least we should jump to conclusions from actual numbers rather than speculation.

And yes, I very much agree with John that people tend to continue to race with the organizations they start out with. I believe it's too early to draw any conclusions regarding the success of TNiA/Targa/PDX in generating new racers, but those avenues do us absolutely no good in attracting kids interested in open-wheelers. I recall there was discussion about getting involved with some of the karting bodies about ten years ago (when Steve Johnson was Prez), but I don't know why that never came to fruition.

[GT1Vette]

Looking at the data in this format I see a couple of conclusions I can jump to immediately!

The numbers in FF and FV are relatively the same compared to 2005, so (contrary to what some believe) it appears the introduction of the Honda has not "destroyed" the class. Another thing that jumps out to me is FB and FE did not exist in 2005, so did many FA & FC drivers migrate to FB while half the FM drivers jumped to FE?

[Amon]

Butch,

I also believe there's a Pro series that I think runs separately from the SCCA most of the time that has drawn away the FF, FC's and others from the SCCA? We've run with the FV
Challenge group in the past via FRP and it was considered a Pro weekend and FF, FC, FB,
FA and I believe F4 were in attendance?

Mark

[2BWise]

The Solo Nationals are going on right now in Nebraska. That event managed to attract 1350 entrants, and there was a waitlist! There are people driving huge distances to attend and over the course of two days competing they get 6 runs; roughly 6 minutes of total seat time. Plus, they have to work the course while they're there. There's less payoff and more work yet they pull a huge turnout. Obviously that program is doing something right.

This year was the first year in a decade that I've done an autocross. When I started I always thought it was a stepping stone for going club racing, but having now experienced it again I sure don't see the connection anymore. The Solo community have managed to create a playground that directly competes with club racing, is fighting for the same members, yet is hugely more popular.

[GT1Vette]

Butch,

I also believe there's a Pro series that I think runs separately from the SCCA most of the time that has drawn away the FF, FC's and others from the SCCA? We've run with the FV
Challenge group in the past via FRP and it was considered a Pro weekend and FF, FC, FB,
FA and I believe F4 were in attendance?

Mark

Valid points, but FB, FE, and FM are not FRP classes (and FF has remained fairly stable) so that muddies the waters.

I know there's discussion (mentioned in the latest SportsCar) about establishing a "Pro path" towards qualifying for the Runoffs where one would be allowed to count a combination of Pro events plus Majors/Regional participation towards earning a Runoffs invitation. IF that is approved it should help the FA, FC, FF (and GT1/GT2) numbers at the Runoffs, but there are still details to be hashed out (i.e. - debated endlessly).

[RSS]

Looks like it should go back out to the left coast by those numbers.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I know there's discussion (mentioned in the latest SportsCar) about establishing a "Pro path" towards qualifying for the Runoffs where one would be allowed to count a combination of Pro events plus Majors/Regional participation towards earning a Runoffs invitation. IF that is approved it should help the FA, FC, FF (and GT1/GT2) numbers at the Runoffs, but there are still details to be hashed out (i.e. - debated endlessly).

Okay - so what we are saying here is the most important thing is to boost numbers AT the runoffs - which is supposed to be an AMATEUR national championship.

I thought the runoffs were a reflection of what was happening regionally. Fix that and the runoffs improve....

If we just want numbers at the runoffs why bother with any of the qualifying. Eliminate the need to run Majors and gather points and you have more people showing up....

[stonebridge20]

okay - so what we are saying here is the most important thing is to boost numbers at the runoffs - which is supposed to be an amateur national championship.

I thought the runoffs were a reflection of what was happening regionally. Fix that and the runoffs improve....

If we just want numbers at the runoffs why bother with any of the qualifying. Eliminate the need to run majors and gather points and you have more people showing up....

bingo !

[GT1Vette]

Okay - so what we are saying here is the most important thing is to boost numbers AT the runoffs - which is supposed to be an AMATEUR national championship.

I thought the runoffs were a reflection of what was happening regionally. Fix that and the runoffs improve....

If we just want numbers at the runoffs why bother with any of the qualifying. Eliminate the need to run Majors and gather points and you have more people showing up....

And the endless debate begins...

Those in support of this proposal point to the fact that a number of the "Pro" cars, specifically FA, FC, and FF, plus GT1 & GT2 (in the form of TA and TA2) have ALREADY left the Club Racing ranks, so allowing them to qualify for the Runoffs via an alternate path would encourage them to participate in at least one Club Racing event more than they currently do.

[swiftdrivr]

To divert from the list of "could fix it but won't" and the "could fix it but haven't", there is a minor addition to the "can't do nothing about it" list. In my time, CART was the best racing on the planet. People watched he Indy 500, then were drawn into the other races. It made people who saw it want to do it too. Now CART is dead, Indy for years was essentially dead, the even now the IRL is a spec series. F1 is, and for a long time has been, a parade with a known outcome. The "free advertisement" is now much less persuasive, in a culture where cars are no longer seen as a right of passage and a ticket to freedom.
That being said, we COULD get into supporting karting, which is the most logical and likely most productive move I see available. I can't see why that isn't being done.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

And the endless debate begins...

Those in support of this proposal point to the fact that a number of the "Pro" cars, specifically FA, FC, and FF, plus GT1 & GT2 (in the form of TA and TA2) have ALREADY left the Club Racing ranks, so allowing them to qualify for the Runoffs via an alternate path would encourage them to participate in at least one Club Racing event more than they currently do.

So having the "Pros" add one more club race is going to fix what?
Won't that take points away from the amateurs trying to get to the runoffs?
And drive the costs for the amateurs UP because they may have to go to yet another race to gather points?

With that aren't they saying we just want more pro racers?

They are also saying club racers don't matter and the runoffs are more important.
And the funny thing is they are blaming club racers for low participation when every move they make discourages club racer participation.

Again, I propose, to that end, eliminate qualifying altogether. Just have a big race....

I'm not the smartest business person but it seems to me SCCA is focusing on fewer customers with big $$ rather than many customers with fewer dollars.
I'd rather have 40 customers with $1 to spend than 4 customers with $10 when you're selling something with low incremental cost and high fixed cost.

CLUB LIVES MATTER

[problemchild]

Improving things at the local club racing level is the key to everything. That brings out garage queens, pro guys, part-timers, wannabes, etc. Then you have a chance to restructure the Runoffs and make them work.

If we just try and make all events decent, and save the "special" events for once or twice a year, I think we will be better off. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running a 2-day event at your local track. That built the club and will be a big part of any revival.

As a driver, every event is a "special" event. As the financier, and the guy taking time from work and family, I only need the occasional "special" event.

[GT1Vette]

So having the "Pros" add one more club race is going to fix what?
Won't that take points away from the amateurs trying to get to the runoffs?
And drive the costs for the amateurs UP because they may have to go to yet another race to gather points?

With that aren't they saying we just want more pro racers?

They are also saying club racers don't matter and the runoffs are more important.
And the funny thing is they are blaming club racers for low participation when every move they make discourages club racer participation.

Again, I propose, to that end, eliminate qualifying altogether. Just have a big race....

I'm not the smartest business person but it seems to me SCCA is focusing on fewer customers with big $$ rather than many customers with fewer dollars.
I'd rather have 40 customers with $1 to spend than 4 customers with $10 when you're selling something with low incremental cost and high fixed cost.

CLUB LIVES MATTER

And if you eliminate the need to qualify for the Runoffs, what incentive do people have to run their local events? You're contradicting yourself.

To Greg's point, the key to building the regional/local program is offering a championship for those not interested in attending the Runoffs, certainly at least in the years it is not in their backyard. While racing more often improves your chances, it's important said championship can be attained in as few as four two-day weekends of racing - three at a relatively local level (one-day's drive) plus a season-ending, post-Runoffs, centrally-located "finale" that might require a bit more travel. Those championships would be recognized by the National Office and the names and sponsors of the winners would be publicized for all the world to see.

The seven championships:
1. SPDiv
2. NPDiv
- with a joint championship event being conducted by SFR)

3. SWDiv
4. MWDiv & RMDiv (put back together)
- with the joint championship event at Hallett

5. GLDiv & CENDiv (also put back together), the champ event at Mid-Ohio or BFR

6. SEDiv
7. NEDiv
- with the champ event at VIR

And once Bowling Green (which is about as centrally-located as you can get for the Eastern part of the country) becomes part of the regular SCCA schedule, maybe have a joint event there for divisions 5, 6, & 7.

But that's just my idea to help make things better...

[Peter Olivola]

With the exception of the separate conferences for NE/SE, you've just described the Majors conferences. Getting CEN/GL back together will be more difficult than reassembling Humpty-Dumpty. What happens here in fly-over country shouldn't determine the overall direction of the club as the numbers aren't big enough.

Using the existing Majors conferences and a conference wide season ending event would do most of what you suggest with the least disruption of the current program. NE and SE have regional based championship events. That the rest of the regions/divisions/conferences haven't picked up on this is not a failure of the national office, but those regions/divisions/conferences.

And if you eliminate the need to qualify for the Runoffs, what incentive do people have to run their local events? You're contradicting yourself.

To Greg's point, the key to building the regional/local program is offering a championship for those not interested in attending the Runoffs, certainly at least in the years it is not in their backyard. While racing more often improves your chances, it's important said championship can be attained in as few as four two-day weekends of racing - three at a relatively local level (one-day's drive) plus a season-ending, post-Runoffs, centrally-located "finale" that might require a bit more travel. Those championships would be recognized by the National Office and the names and sponsors of the winners would be publicized for all the world to see.

The seven championships:
1. SPDiv
2. NPDiv
- with a joint championship event being conducted by SFR)

3. SWDiv
4. MWDiv & RMDiv (put back together)
- with the joint championship event at Hallett

5. GLDiv & CENDiv (also put back together), the champ event at Mid-Ohio or BFR

6. SEDiv
7. NEDiv
- with the champ event at VIR

And once Bowling Green (which is about as centrally-located as you can get for the Eastern part of the country) becomes part of the regular SCCA schedule, maybe have a joint event there for divisions 5, 6, & 7.

But that's just my idea to help make things better...

[Chris Elwell]

Looking at the numbers it appears that if one were to ignore formula cars then it would be easy to say the 2016 Runoffs will be successful. Something like over 600 entries.

Based on those numbers one could say that it is the formula classes that are falling apart.

...

I agree that the problem isn't the runoffs or SCCA in general, but that open wheel is dying. Go to a race and there are still a decent amount of people with Spec Miata's and IT cars on open trailers with older trucks and kids running around. I guarantee you all those cars have SCCA and NASA class stickers on their car. So there is probably a similar amount of people racing as "club" racers now as there was in the 1970's. Just that now the FV/FF people of the 70's are now the SM/IT people of 2016.

[GT1Vette]

With the exception of the separate conferences for NE/SE, you've just described the Majors conferences. Getting CEN/GL back together will be more difficult than reassembling Humpty-Dumpty. What happens here in fly-over country shouldn't determine the overall direction of the club as the numbers aren't big enough.

Using the existing Majors conferences and a conference wide season ending event would do most of what you suggest with the least disruption of the current program. NE and SE have regional based championship events. That the rest of the regions/divisions/conferences haven't picked up on this is not a failure of the national office, but those regions/divisions/conferences.

Agreed. When I went to Topeka in 2012 after coming from SEDiv (where SARRC is a very successful regional racing series) I was surprised most other divisions didn't have similar programs. But they also never got any "encouragement" from the National Office to create such a program either.

Shortly after arriving in Kansas I sent a similar proposal on how to rebuild their regional racing program to many leaders in MWDiv (including their then-director Ms Noble) and it was met with crickets. Something about horses to water???

[BeerBudgetRacing]

And if you eliminate the need to qualify for the Runoffs, what incentive do people have to run their local events? You're contradicting yourself.

Exactly! But I think it's SCCA who is contradicting themselves.

They are already discouraging participation at the club level with the Majors and by inviting Pros back into the fold.


My point is: What does SCCA see as the most important thing about the runoffs?

A: Runoffs participation? Then eliminate qualifying. People can spend there budgets on fewer regional races and have money to go to the "event"...

B: Club Racer participation?
Then:
- forget the departed pros. Begging lost loves to return is pathetic anyway. They left for a reason.
- simplify and reduce the cost of qualifying.
- have drivers that PLAN to go for the runoffs earn points differently or if qualified people do not sign up, they redistribute points earned. (see below**)
- Fix the Regional/Division cock-up. I don't think anyone qualifies via divisional points anymore.


** I just looked at the entries for FC. Not 1 of the 7 entries from the left coast. BUT we certainly have drivers more than qualified to go.... For some it's a money issue (and saving for Indy), for others I do not know. BUT some of the top points earners in the west are not interested in the runoffs thereby raising the cost via additional racing for those that do want to go. This is the "pro" effect. Pro level drivers with pro level budgets raising the cost to even participate in the runoffs. It's been estimated to cost about $30k on the low side to campaign an FC to the runoffs next year. Does not include things like engine rebuilding, etc. to be competitive.


Yes, contradictions everywhere. That's why people step back.....

[Wren]

So having the "Pros" add one more club race is going to fix what?
Won't that take points away from the amateurs trying to get to the runoffs?
And drive the costs for the amateurs UP because they may have to go to yet another race to gather points?

With that aren't they saying we just want more pro racers?

They are also saying club racers don't matter and the runoffs are more important.
And the funny thing is they are blaming club racers for low participation when every move they make discourages club racer participation.

Calm down. The "pro" racers just represent another group of available cars and dedicated SCCA customers that would add to the overall runoffs experience/level of competition. Some of them are already running club events anyways. A way for the SCCA Pro customers to use some of their pro events and some club events to enter the runoffs is going to result in more club entries and more runoffs entries. I really hope that the SCCA figures out how to make it happen.

Improving things at the local club racing level is the key to everything. That brings out garage queens, pro guys, part-timers, wannabes, etc. Then you have a chance to restructure the Runoffs and make them work.

That is everything.

Every decision should focus on improving the club racing experience. Easy to say, hard to do. You will likely have almost as many different responses on what would improve the experience as you would entries at any event. Sometimes it is easier to exclude an idea based on "no one is going to have a better experience if we do this."

[Wren]

It's been estimated to cost about $30k on the low side to campaign an FC to the runoffs next year.

By who?!?! Crazy, made up numbers like this don't help the situation since people see this and think that these numbers are reality. I am pretty sure that we didn't spend that much to run 1 club race and 6 pro races so far this year with some reasonably good results. We've won the runoffs a couple of times in a comparable class without spending that much.

WTH are people spending that much money on?

[RSS]

And if you eliminate the need to qualify for the Runoffs, what incentive do people have to run their local events?

Possibly they enjoy racing cars as a hobby?

I don't know I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that's why some people do it.