Improving National racing

[budawe]

Todd, good luck on seeing any acounting records. I've been requesting info for years and it's like pulling teeth. SCCA pays nothing for the Runoffs, but earns a lion's share of their budget from it.

[Brian Holtz]

Brian, we'd have to look at the economics of it. What does SCCA pay and what's the revenue from the Runoffs and what do the alternatives look like wrt cost/benefit. I'd like to see a clean accounting sheet for that specific event, including track rental (or payments to SCCA), cost/revenue for SPEED coverage etc. All those things need to be put in the hopper. One could argue (in the absence of facts it's easy) that we can live without TV coverage, if we rented the track vs asked the track to pay us for the right to host the Runoffs, they would not need to sell to spectators to make it work, etc.

Todd

Todd,

The SCCA does not pay for TV coverage, nor do we receive revenue for it. Therefore, this only enters into the equation if we change the format of the event to the point where SPEED decides that it is not worth the cost to tape it and the SCCA and the drivers lose the TV exposure. It is my understanding that alternative cost arrangements were looked at during the recent Runoffs contract discussions, including the possiblity of SCCA renting the facility, but the final decision was to continue with the basic format that we have been using.

Brian

[M.Sauce]

Todd, good luck on seeing any acounting records. I've been requesting info for years and it's like pulling teeth. SCCA pays nothing for the Runoffs, but earns a lion's share of their budget from it.

Just to set the record straight SCCA does not earn the lions share of our budget from the Runoffs.The Runoffs is only a small part of the budget..In fact the Runoffs historically has yielded very little profit.It's costs have escalated every year.We have tried to hold down the entry fee costs and it in my opinion remains the lowest entry fee for the track time offered.I do however agree that the length of the event and time necessary needs to be shortened to no more than 4 days.You will have many people say the opposite but every year it gets a little harder for the competitors to alocate the time necessary with the existing schedule. Mike Sauce

[John LaRue]

Mike,

Do you honestly see the BOD making changes to the Runoffs format?

John

[Jim Garry]

4) Make the national points a sliding/weighted scale based on number of class entries. A win over a 40 car field is worth a lot more than a win over a 4 car field in points. So depending on what "X" is above, it's possible a driver could win a single large field race and qualify for the Runoff's in one race and others drivers might have to work thru 6-8 Nationals to get "X" points.

The problem with this method of points is that a great driver could chase all the cars out of his class in his division (or simply be in a division where his class is sparsely populated) and thus not score as many points as other drivers in his class in other divisions.

[M.Sauce]

Mike,

Do you honestly see the BOD making changes to the Runoffs format?

John

John- If we could come up with a format that would allow us to make the Runoffs a shorter event and make it sucessful,I would support it 100%.My experience at the Runoffs has always been that it takes too long.I would like to see more racing ,less sitting around,better publicity,more spectators and standing starts. This could be accomplished by having the event where racers want to race,come up with a reasonable invitation process,market the heck out of it and have heat races and less qualifying sessions.Create Divisional Championships that are meaningful and marketed properly so that the competition is enhanced and the local National racers that cannot go to the Runoffs are still enthused.One other issue for me is to change the location regularly so no Division has it for 20 years.A venue change every 2-3 years works for me. Mike Sauce

[SteveLevin]

The problem with this method of points is that a great driver could chase all the cars out of his class in his division (or simply be in a division where his class is sparsely populated) and thus not score as many points as other drivers in his class in other divisions.

Jim, this is exactly the effect that Todd is advocating. Right now, the way one qualifies for the Runoffs actually discourages larger regions (SFR being held up as the poster child here) from being involved in National racing at all -- and it discourages interest from drivers in the biggest classes as well. If you can get out on track, finish ahead of 25 cars, and still be 5 positions out of the points, why would you be interested in National competition at all?

The only way you are going to get National competition to be "inspired", IMHO, is to base points not on the number of positions from the front one finishes, but how far from the rear one finishes.

Steve

[Matt King]

John- If we could come up with a format that would allow us to make the Runoffs a shorter event and make it sucessful,I would support it 100%.My experience at the Runoffs has always been that it takes too long.I would like to see more racing ,less sitting around,better publicity,more spectators and standing starts. This could be accomplished by having the event where racers want to race,come up with a reasonable invitation process,market the heck out of it and have heat races and less qualifying sessions.

You are basically describing the NASA Nationals format, other than the spectators, which are hard to draw to any club racing event.

[budawe]

With all due respects Mike, this is the very reason that I am frustrated by the lack of disclosure on finanacial issues. I know that the Runoffs generate over $200,000 in entry fees each year. Are you saying it costs that much to put on the Runoffs? Additionally, in addition to the much touted AT&T sponsorship, I know that in prior years SCCA received payments from the tracks. Mid Ohio payments reached $200,000 and HRP paid a $50,000 bonus in 2007. I undeerstand some money found it's way to the tow fund, but where is all our money going? How about a income statement from the 2007/2008 runoffs?

[Brian Holtz]

With all due respects Mike, this is the very reason that I am frustrated by the lack of disclosure on finanacial issues. I know that the Runoffs generate over $200,000 in entry fees each year. Are you saying it costs that much to put on the Runoffs? Additionally, in addition to the much touted AT&T sponsorship, I know that in prior years SCCA received payments from the tracks. Mid Ohio payments reached $200,000 and HRP paid a $50,000 bonus in 2007. I undeerstand some money found it's way to the tow fund, but where is all our money going? How about a income statement from the 2007/2008 runoffs?

The event sponsorship money does not go to the SCCA. The track has the rights to the named sponsor. The AT&T money went to Heartland Park

[Steve Demeter]

$200,000 in entry fees. Try $300K + (600+ entries X $500) add in the $200k plus fee that the track pays foir the privelege of hosting the Runoffs and one has in excess of 1/2 million$ revenue.

From that subtract the awards dinners, the expenses of having the entire national staff there for a week (oh the last 3 years they did not have to travel or stay in hotels), insurance and other expenses and you should have a profit in excess of $200K.

The tow fund is paid for by a (IIRC $15) portion of every national entry for the entire year.


The point is that while there should be a major profit on the Runoffs, it is a small piece of the total pie to run the national office.

Of course in years past, the Atlanta region put the runoffs on, and the entry fee was exactly ZERO. And the club was not going broke.

[M.Sauce]

Steve- The following are accurate.
1.The $15.00 from the entry only gets us close to 50% of the tow fund.The other 50% comes from the track fee paid for having the Runoffs.
2.The Event sponsor money goes to the track.
3.The entry fee has been between $300.00 and $350.00 until we go to Road America.
4.Revenue from spectators goes to the track(SCCA gets 25%)
5.All test days and any other revenue with the exception of SCCA merchandise goes to the track.
6.Only a small contingent of the National Staff go to the Runoffs.
7.SCCA has to pay extra for all parties(tents at Mid-Ohio etc)

Conclusion? The Runoffs is not the cash cow everyone thinks it is.
We shoot to be in the black but many years have been slightly in the red.
We all need to understand that if the Runoffs is not revenue positive for the track and the club,no track will want to host it.
Anyone who wants answers to questions about the Runoffs I am happy to answer them.I would appreciate doing that on a more personal situation.Call me at 817-860-1985

[Steve Demeter]

"The point is that while there should be a major profit on the Runoffs, it is a small piece of the total pie to run the national office."

Mike,
I think that is what I said.

[budawe]

Thanks Mike for the response. I know how dangerous it can be posting on the internet. It just seems hard to fathom why it costs over $200k to put on the Runoffs. While I have never seen the proposals from the tracks, I understood that the tracks provided the tents and golf carts. The idea that a few meals, some inexpensive handouts and 75 trophies cost all that much. Oh well, I'm just an old accountant with too many runs for the gold. Looks like this year's entry fee might be going up as well.

[M.Sauce]

The Runoffs in my opinion should be a profitable event for SCCA.I personally think we could have done things differently with the tracks in the past.But that is in the past.We have a whole new set of parameters with Road America but also a different deal philosophy.I think the Runoffs will be better for the competitors which ultimately is better for SCCA as an organization. I still would like to see a different format,heat races standing starts all that stuff I believe it makes it more challenging for the competitors and more interesting for the spectators.I don't think it would hurt the TV coverage either.

[racerric]

Split the runoffs into 2 consecutive 5 day weekends based on participation numbers. Run half the classes in each weekend. Move into paddock on Tuesday, practice for everyone on Wednesday, Qualifying on Thursday & Friday, Races on Saturday & Sunday and awards banquet on Sunday night. Or something similar to that.

You might even get different crews of workers for each segment and saves them from having to spend 2 weeks, now would be 1 week including travel time. More workers might consider attending the run-offs?

Also have the run-offs in August each year which usually has the best weather around the country thus allowing most regions/racetracks (north, east, west, south)to bid for the date. Better weather = better crowds and attendance.

Also having it in August allows many people & students (younger drivers 16 - 24 year olds in High School & College) to attend the run-offs without missing school. Summer time is also vacation time for most.

Then you can start the race season schedules on Sept 1st and they end with the run-offs in August the following year.

I like the idea of bringing back the North American Road Racing Championship again or something similar.

Any thoughts?