Reunification of GL & Cen DIV

[John LaRue]

Last evening I forwarded the following to the BOD:

Members of the Board of Directors:

I am encouraging you to take action to reunite the now existing Great Lakes and Central Divisions. From the day upon which this once great division was split participation (at least on a National basis) has severely declined. I have not researched participation figures for each division post split, but having competed in both divisions on a regular basis I feel most assured that hard figures will bear out this conclusion. From a logical perspective it is simple math; we have essentially divided the same number of participants over more events and created the "divisional" boundaries which discouages travel outside of the divisions for National points/Runoffs credit. We have further diminished the support which the old Cen Div races garnered from the suppliers as they now have more events and fewer entrants per event to service.

Among those with whom I have spoken there is good support for this type of action. The act of reunification would certainly be less difficult than the split as the number of officials required would effectively decrease. Given that there were Directors for both Area 4 and 5 there would be no change in representation at the Board level thus avoiding an amendment to the by-laws. As I understand it, this action can be taken by a vote of the BOD as it would only reflect a change in the Operations Manual.

At the time of the split Erik Skirmants was the Area 4 Director and informs me that this was his last act in such capacity. Now having the benefit of hindsight Erik tells me that he believes this was not the correct decision and that the Divisions should be reunited. He has further told me that he would be happy to discuss this matter and his thoughts, for what they are worth, with any of the BOD or others who are interested.

Given the recent bold actions of the BOD in creating the "Majors" and the resultant dismantling of territorial boundaries in an effort to create successful events and the charge which the BOD has given the CRB to actively manage and reduce class counts, I encourage you to continue to move in this direction and reunite these divisions.

Regards,

John B. LaRue

The BOD indicates that if there is support for this action it would be favorably entertained. In my own opinion it would certainly be nice to put "our group" back together and see classes with some real competition.

[kea]

I couldn't agree with you more.
I'll send my copy to the BOD in support.

[Joefisherff]

I concur!

[Tifosi]

I agree.

[John LaRue]

Be certain to send your letters to the BOD on this matter asap.

[Marshall Mauney]

I'm relatively new to CenDiv, so I don't have the benefit of having lived through the split and everything that went with it. Thus, I have a couple of questions before I write my letter:

1) What was the reasoning behind the split, and what were the expected benefits?

2) Were any of those expected benefits realized?

3) What benefit would there be from re-unification?

4) What negatives would ensue from re-unification?

5) Is there any "bad blood" or "club politics" that will get some people really ticked off if they were to be re-combined - or, for that matter, if the proposal failed?

[John LaRue]

Marshall,

I would suggest that you give Erik a call as he was certainly one of those who was closest to the matter and has a vivid recollection of what transpired, what the pros and cons were at that time, what the expectations were and with the beneift of hindsight what worked and did not work. He was quite candid with me in his thoughts on the subject.

John

[Bill Bonow]

First off, disclaimer: I think the two should have never been split and think re-unification would be the right thing to do.

That said, Marshall, big time yes to # 5 on your list.

I witnessed this whole thing going down, plenty of political uglyness in this one. Most of those players are still in power.

I'll send in the letter as I think they should be back together.

[John LaRue]

I was not on the inside so anything that I know about the politics and personalities as they played out is purely hearsay.

I have the utmost respect and am grateful to all of the members who work as Stewards, Officials or otherwise to make the club tick. That being said, it is time that we put the politics aside and begin to bail the water out of this sinking ship. If we are not part of the solution we are part of the problem and there is not room for that going forward.

[Bill Bonow]

JLR, 100% agree. Letter sent

[Jnovak]

I AGREE 100%. Re-unite the 2 divisions.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[DaveW]

Request sent to the CRB through their request form on the SCCA site, and an email to BOD@SCCA.com .

[wayno]

Agree! Email Sent !

[Northwind]

Re uniting the divisions also seems to fit the "Majors" stategy. Pulling racers from a larger geographic area to support the fewer classes but larger "like" run groups.

[Steve Demeter]

Amen to undoing the stupid split.

Just made one strong division into two weak ones

And no matter what is done club bickering and politics will come into play.

Just the nature of everyone wanting to protect their personal turf.

[mmi16]

While I have no dog in the fight - I could never understand the split in the first place; it made no sense to me in viewing it from afar. And it still makes no more sense today.

[bwaltz]

There were a number of reasons why the split made sense back then, including:
- The large regions in Area 5 did not play nice when it came time to schedule races.
- Having 10 to 12 Nationals in Cen-Div made it really hard to defend your points position.
- Higher subscribed classes found sufficient and competitive fields close to home without traveling 8 hours.

So, I think the split makes sense if you are in a smaller region that runs fewer races, you are in a class with higher participation levels, or only want to run a handful of Nationals.

The split is not for you if you are in a larger region, are in a class with smaller field sizes, or plan to run a lot of races.

[Dave Harmison]

I don't know how to link to old posts, but the search feature (well done on the upgrades) revealed that this topic was brought up:

Dave Harmison, Splitting Cendiv Sept 8, 2004
Dave Weitzenhoff, Nov. 10, 2004

Could a moderator provide links and maybe people could read what was said by whom back in '04.

BTW: When I started my thread it was to object to the split and I posted same in Dave W's thread.

[mdwracer]

What most people out of division don't know is that driving through Chicago anytime other than 2-3 am takes up to 3 hours I live at the southern end of Great Lakes and love Road America and Blackhawk and would make the drive north. I am for re-uniting the divisions, but I was in the minority back in the day.

Mike Winebrenner

[Kevin Coulter]

What most people out of division don't know is that driving through Chicago anytime other than 2-3 am takes up to 3 hours I live at the southern end of Great Lakes and love Road America and Blackhawk and would make the drive north. I am for re-uniting the divisions, but I was in the minority back in the day.

Mike Winebrenner

Mike,

Since the split, the construction in NW Indiana on 80/94 is basically done, and the construction heading to RA on 94/294 in Illinois is done (widening and more ipass only lanes). Also, for those coming up from the southwest, 80-355 to 90 or Lake Cook Road over to 94 is a better run.

The one thing I would recommend is for anyone planning on coming this way is get an IPass if you don't have one or a compatible transponder. Tolls are half the posted rate, and you get to go through non-stop. Just need to initialize it with $40, then refresh when the balance hits $10.

http://www.illinoistollway.com/tolls...s/about-i-pass

Kevin

[DaveW]

I found these from 2004...

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3480

It appears that we have seen many adverse consequences in the last few years...

Hmmmmm... I linked another 2004 thread, and it disappeared.

[John LaRue]

There is some very interesting information in those threads. I find it odd that there is not more support for the split in the threads than what I read. Was this really what the participants wanted or was it what was wanted by those in charge?

[DaveW]

There is some very interesting information in those threads. I find it odd that there is not more support for the split in the threads than what I read. Was this really what the participants wanted or was it what was wanted by those in charge?

The idea for the split was not, IMO, started by the participants (drivers & workers). IIRC, it was a result of conflicts within the original CenDiv, in large part regarding race scheduling.

[Bill Bonow]

....or was it what was wanted by those in charge?

From what I saw, yes.

Dave is correct, scheduling was the root cause for the split.

[scott sanda]

John,

I'll answer that:

It was what the combined regions of Area 4, now known as GLD, unanimously wanted, led by OVR.

For 2 years there was a consolidated push to split, and the Area 5 regions consistently said no. Finally, in year 3, Erik said he would support the split if the area 4 regions all unanimously agreed. They did. he got it from them in writing. I may still have the spreadsheet somewhere.

We decided not to fight it any more, as we were tired of the spears and barbs, and agreed.

Someone earlier in this thread said is was because the "large area 5 regions wouldn't play nice with race dates". Nothing could be further from the truth. Every year I was involved with Scheduling, area 5 would put together a 4 or 5 national race schedule by mutual agreement between Chi, Mil, LOL and BVR, and take it to the Division scheduling roundtable. Area 4 would have knock down drag out fights among themselves over dates, that used to degenerate into yelling and accusations.

Where the "Big bad area 5, and Evil Mike Englake as director" BS started was when area 4 started insisting on having 10+ nationals. I think one year they proposed 14. Mike simply said "no", and to this day I support that 100%.

The distribution had always been 4 and 6, maybe getting as high as 5 and 8, and that was sustainable. trying to hold over 10 in area 4 alone was asinine.

Take a look at the schedules for a few years after the split. 12, 13 nationals in GLD, and almost every one lost money.

Today, GLD has, by economic attrition, a pretty rational schedule.

We also cooperate with each other in semi enlightened self interest. For instance: Chicago had an Autobahn date locked in, but discovered it was going to be directly against the Gingerman double. Since the Gingerman date was "older", and holding 2 races the same weekend would hurt both, we gave up our weekend.

Now lets address the myth, yes myth of "if we recombine there will be bigger fields".

That's crap. There is nothing at all right now that prevents drivers from either division from running OOD. Actually, the divisional points allow 3 OOD races to count, as to the "national points".

the Split didn't reduce formula car counts. SCCA's handling of runoffs qualification and the proliferation of open wheel classes did.

When everyone could qualify simply by showing up, there was no reason to go do hard schedules.

Today, they only take top 3 in division, BUT, you still have the 50% national points rule. Again, do 4 races, hit 50%, your qualified.

Back prior to the split there were FC, FA, FF, FM, F500 and FV. Now you have FE and F1000 added to the national mix, and FS, FST and F600 regionally.

New drivers aren't necessarily going to FC or FA when they can run FE or F1000 for a lot less money. Hell, SCCA is in direct competition with FC,FA and FM by creating FE.

RO's this year had 15 FA, 15 FC, 10 FB, 16 FE, 22 FF and 14 FM cars. That has nothing to do with the split, and recombining won't make it better.

Don't think I'm casting stones at open wheel. My chosen GT classes are in the same kind of trouble.

Split or no split isn't going to change car counts. That is economic and rules related.

My personal feeling is that recombining is going to hurt counts and Ro participation, because now instead of 6 divisional qualifiers, you will only get 3, but the "points" system will stay the same so people will still only do the minimum to qualify.

Feel free to flame, I'm wearing asbestos

[scott sanda]

I wanted to update the above post. I found a first round Area 4 vote spreadhseet.

Detroit, OVR, Neo, Western michigan, Fort Wayne all said yes, Indianapolis and South bend said no, and INR abstained.

So I don't know if it was a unanimous vote at the end. possibly not. there is a note in comments under Indy: "pete hylton says yes".

By region membership, that was 84% yes at that time.

[John LaRue]

All of this is good and useful information. THANK YOU!!!

Today things simply are not the same as they were 6 or 7 years ago. We cannot sustain or support that number of race dates period. I totally agree that was just silly. We need a reasonable number of National events spread across the decent tracks we have in Areas 4 & 5.

We also cannot afford to have people who cannot work together making decisions for the club. This is a hobby, something that is supposed to be fun. We see what this political BS has done for our country and it is time to put an end to that in our little world of SCCA. If the officials that we have in Area's 4 & 5 cannot sit down and work to put a schedule together as adults than they need to excuse themselves and go play somewhere else.

As for Runoffs invitations it could be argued that if we did recombine it would boost participation because each event would be more important than simply showing up to punch the ticket which is the status quo. If someone were to look at participation figures I would bet that we had more Cen Div participants before the split than GL and Cen Div are now sending. Irregardless, I think you are correct in looking at the "new" requirements:

Today, they only take top 3 in division, BUT, you still have the 50% national points rule. Again, do 4 races, hit 50%, your qualified.

With these standards I don't think this is a real issue any longer.


There are, as has been pointed out, a number of problems with SCCA racing. The split of the Division IMHO is one of them. Will it fix everything to reunite? I don't think so, but it will help to put things back together and get us on the proper road. The math is simple assuming a rasonable number of races spread across Areas 4 & 5 we should see overall increases on the grid. If we go back to too many races it will be of no benefit.

John

[Tom Maycock]

John (and everyone else who's voted "yes" here),

Scott pretty much echoed my own initial reaction to this question--i.e. that the split has had minimal impact on the number of races, and thus not much effect on the number of participants per race, and that other issues have been much more significant.

And, frankly, I don't think a full re-unification of the two divisions is likely, or probably even desirable, for a whole host of reasons (having nothing to do with past political heartburn).

But, hypothetically speaking, suppose it were possible to combine the two divisions purely with respect to club racing points (and Runoffs qualifications) and, by extension, scheduling.

Restricting ourselves just to the National races for the moment, what would you consider to be a "reasonable" number of races--total across the combined "division" and in each half.

For example, I believe this year we have:

Total: 11
CenDiv: 5
GlDiv: 6

If you could combine the two divisions and set those numbers, what would you suggest?

Thanks,
Tom

[MEngelke]

My opinion is it was a bad idea then and it is even worse idea now.

Why would any one want to partner up with a group of people that don't want to be true partners. Back then ( I realize today is not back then) the move was for Area 5 to have less races so Area 4 could have more. The regions back then wanted a split from Area 5 and we gave it to them. Area 5 is very healthy today and we have good turnouts and everyone is making money. This proposal would kill Land o Lakes. BIR is back on line and they are making some good decisions on their future. Re-joining with Area 4 will mean BIR will have low car turn-outs. Because of the Run-offs we have high turn-outs and when the Run-Offs moves along to a new track we will be fine with car counts just like before the Run-Offs came to town.

As for the SCCA BOD, they can reverse or approve the merge but, it better be done as a open process. Most people do not want to go back and I think it is the right decision today.

[John LaRue]

Tom;

It would be nice if we could get away from the us and them program and look at how many events we see as appropriate in the DIVISION.

Speaking to "events" rather than races so as to not confuse all of this with the "doubles" I would propose one event per venue. As I figure that we would have 7. BIR; Road America; BHF; Gingerman; Grattan; Mid Ohio; Nelson.

Personally I would not be opposed to doubling up at RA since the June Sprints date is going to happen anyway and the Cat likely will continue to do well so long as Runoffs are scheduled there. I have no immediate heartburn with doubling up at another venue as well; perhaps on the east side of the lake to even things up if that is a concern. Actually by leaving RA as the only track which would be visited twice the count appears to be even for those looking at the East-West split.

If we threw some double events into the mix I dont think that would be that much of an issue. What we need to also think about is those events which do not do well. If they can't pull the entires then, just as with the classes, they should be cut. I would much rather see 6 or 7 well attended events than 10 or 11 poorly attended events.

John

[Tom Maycock]

Thanks for the response. I don't want to comment on any specific numbers at this point, as I'm really interested in hearing what a variety of folks think about that.

One comment though:

If we threw some double events into the mix I dont think that would be that much of an issue.

I think the issue of doubles is a big one, at least from the perspective of regions trying to decide whether or not to sanction an event.

If they are all doubles, well, suddenly you have a LOT of nationals, and turnout is diluted (plus doubles put more of a burden on your volunteers).

But if only some are doubles, well, that's a really tough deal for the events that aren't doubles.

Tom

[John LaRue]

Tom,

You may be absolutely correct on the doubles; I suppose it might dilute the number of "events" someone does in a given season. If that is the problem then do away with them or limit the doubles to what is thought of as acceptable. Again, nothing should be too big to overcome.

This is exactly what makes the F2000/F1600/FA pro series so attractive. There is no "us and them". Sure the races are biased to the east, but you know for certain you will have a great grid of cars and good racing. We can bitch and moan about driving around Chicago or some longer travel distances (yes, I hate that too) but in the end it is all about having a few good well attended races on the schedule. If SCCA had done its job (Regions and Divisions included) then I sincerely doubt that those series would be enjoying the success which they currently see.

John

[Tom Maycock]

First, I should note I'm speaking in my official capacity as President of CenDiv corp here (a position of very limited influence, mind you, but some influence at least):

Again, nothing should be too big to overcome.

Agree.

But...the devil is really in the details here, which is why I was hoping to get all the folks who are saying "Yes! Reunite!" here in this thread to take the time to lay out specifically what they would like to see in a unified schedule.

Because, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to even begin discussing the idea unless there is a potential for broad agreement on what a workable schedule might look like.

Personally, I don't think it's likely that anyone will come up with a schedule that would actually accomplish the goal of improving turnouts and competition while also satisfying all of the stake holders. But I'm willing to hear any and all suggestions.

So far, we have John's proposal of one "event" per venue (perhaps plus a 2nd event at Road America), so 8 weekends, with 4 on each "side". I should note that John's track list didn't include Autobahn Country Club, which has been home to Nationals in the past--not sure if any GlDiv tracks were missing.

Thanks,
Tom

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I'm not sure what we have for a goal number of nationals in a united CenDiv/GL, but I sure miss the schedule of the early 2000's which included:

2 at Blackhawk
2 at Grattan
2 at Road America
2 at Mid-Ohio
1 at Gingerman

I would love to see that again.

[scott sanda]

I'm not sure what we have for a goal number of nationals in a united CenDiv/GL, but I sure miss the schedule of the early 2000's which included:

2 at Blackhawk
2 at Grattan
2 at Road America
2 at Mid-Ohio
1 at Gingerman

I would love to see that again.

Speaking in my non official capacity as me: This would be a nice schedule, however, you forget that in addition to these there were generally:

1 at IRP
1 or 2 at Nelson
1 at Waterford
1 at BIR

Actually, not sure if Waterford held nationals.

So there were always 10+ races, and some had little or no turnout.

I go back to the dilution point. Right now, there is a nice tight schedule between Cendiv and GLD: 9 race weekends for 11 total races. Since there are: fewer drivers, more classes and a down economy, you still aren't going to routinely see big fields.

Someone explain the FV drop to me. FV is a great class, and is probably the least expensive way to race that there is. What happened to all of them?

[Tony Sleath]

I'd like to see a set number of weekends every year. 8 is probably a good number with a max of 2 doubles. There could be 4 weekends in the west and 4 weekends in the east. 1 double on each side.

As for the tracks I wouldn't mind if it changed from year to year. I notice Autobahn isn't always on the schedule. Maybe the 2nd Road America is on the schedule some years and Autobahn others. Also, if a new track like Bluegrass ever opens it could rotate with Gingerman or another track.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is that the Nationals are not on back to back weekends. We've had that the last couple of years in GL over the 4th of July week and I cannot make either one due to family time so I loose 2 possible weekends just about every year.

[John LaRue]

Tom,

I did not include Autobahn because it is not listed as a National event on the Cen Div schedule in 2012. We no longer have IRP/ORP, Putnam (which never was a National track as far as I recall) and Bluegrass never came on line. As I recall Nelson moved in and out of the schedule over the past 15 years as an old Cen Div track; many times those events were NE Division.

Michael,

I too very much enjoyed the old schedule.


John

[Tom Maycock]

I did not include Autobahn because it is not listed as a National event on the Cen Div schedule in 2012.

Got it, makes sense.

Of course, as it happens, I believe the reason Autobahn isn't on the schedule this year is the fact that the only date that would have worked (given the rest of the CenDiv schedule) would have put it directly against the double national at Gingerman, which obviously wouldn't have been good for anyone.

Just goes to show how difficult the scheduling thing is.

Regards,
Tom

[Tom Maycock]

I go back to the dilution point. Right now, there is a nice tight schedule between Cendiv and GLD: 9 race weekends for 11 total races. Since there are: fewer drivers, more classes and a down economy, you still aren't going to routinely see big fields.

Yep.

Tom

[Bill Bonow]

Someone explain the FV drop to me. FV is a great class, and is probably the least expensive way to race that there is. What happened to all of them?

Scott,

Really good and in depth thread about the status of FV:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49990 Only 450 posts to review

Now back to the regularly scheduled CenDiv/GLD re-unification thread