Scheduling

[andyllc]

Has SCCA considered the financials on running fewer events each year? There seems to be (at least on the east coast) a race nearly every weekend if not multiple races every weekend whether they are Regionals or Nationals (or whatever). I wonder if SCCA and the local regions would do better by getting rid of the bottom 20% of events? This might make for larger entry numbers which is better for the competitors, profitable weekends instead of borderline or deficit weekends, and less demand on the volunteers that put on these events...just food for thought.

[EYERACE]

Has SCCA considered the financials on running fewer events each year? There seems to be (at least on the east coast) a race nearly every weekend if not multiple races every weekend whether they are Regionals or Nationals (or whatever). I wonder if SCCA and the local regions would do better by getting rid of the bottom 20% of events? This might make for larger entry numbers which is better for the competitors, profitable weekends instead of borderline or deficit weekends, and less demand on the volunteers that put on these events...just food for thought.

Not speaking as an Official.....just as a guy who's attended enough meetings to have heard stuff > One thing that happens all too much is competition for dates at the tracks between the SCCA and other organizations .......... one thing to not do is lose a date on the calendar because it may soon thereafter be picked up by some other organization and good luck ever getting it back. I doubt the SCCA really want to let what can be viewed as competing organizations have an SCCA date.

[Steve Demeter]

The National Office has little to do with scheduling.

The regions that put on the races and risk their money are the ones that more or less decide how many races there will be.

If you think you can get enough entries to break even or make a few bucks, go for it. If not well......

WOR held it's last WOR Games regional in 2011 for that very reason, after 40 + years of holding the race. Lost our butts in 2010 and 2011. So to a certain extent the number of races is self policing and there are lots fewer than there were even 10 years ago.

Regions constantly discuss worker burnout and how to help alleviate it and let the workers know just how important they are. That is also factored into division scheduling meetings.

Bottom line, the market is largely determining how many races there are and when in concert with track availability.

[dalz]

One thing that happens all too much is competition for dates at the tracks between the SCCA and other organizations .......... one thing to not do is lose a date on the calendar because it may soon thereafter be picked up by some other organization and good luck ever getting it back. I doubt the SCCA really want to let what can be viewed as competing organizations have an SCCA date.

Good grief, do you realize how that sounds?! If true it sure says a lot about how far SCCA, the supposed pinnicle of US club motosports, has slid down the food chain. So SCCA regions are hoarding track dates to the club's detriment...for what? For the grand day that it all turns the corner again?

[Dave Harmison]

My two cents is that we have to quit scheduling back-to-back weekends, especially now that the line between nationals and regionals is more flexible. And part of that is looking at ALL the racing happening in the area.

Examples: Last year there were back-to-back majors at MIS and Mid Ohio. Last weekend was a race at Grattan and this weekend is the FRP race at Mid-Ohio.

I've never sat on any scheduling committee so I trust they are doing the best they can but I figure you lose a fair percentage of racers to one event or the other when you have back-to-back races.

[andyllc]

My two cents is that we have to quit scheduling back-to-back weekends, especially now that the line between nationals and regionals is more flexible. And part of that is looking at ALL the racing happening in the area.

Examples: Last year there were back-to-back majors at MIS and Mid Ohio. Last weekend was a race at Grattan and this weekend is the FRP race at Mid-Ohio.

I've never sat on any scheduling committee so I trust they are doing the best they can but I figure you lose a fair percentage of racers to one event or the other when you have back-to-back races.

Dave, that is exactly my point. Everyone loses by having so many dates. I think the MARRS series last year had something like 14 or 16 races. That sounds great but that is a lot of races for a truly club racing venue. I think fewer events that are better (more cars, competition, time for organization, etc) would be better. SCCA is not NASCAR, we shouldn't race every weekend.

To an earlier comment, I can see that the regions decide what they want to risk and what they want to put on but I think of it differently. I know this is a little bit apples and oranges but I don't go to work to break even. I go to work to make money and make more money that what I have to spend to survive. Otherwise it just isn't worth it!

[BeerBudgetRacing]

To an earlier comment, I can see that the regions decide what they want to risk and what they want to put on but I think of it differently. I know this is a little bit apples and oranges but I don't go to work to break even. I go to work to make money and make more money that what I have to spend to survive. Otherwise it just isn't worth it!

So, if you are running a business and you know todays sales won't cover todays expenses, you just close the doors and go home?

You have to look at the bigger picture. Sales (participation) ebbs and flows. If you keep your costs even some events will have a profit, some a loss.

There is no guarantee the sales from the slow days will come back to you on busy days.

The purpose of the regions is to promote racing, not make money....

[andyllc]

This is why I said it is a bit of apples and oranges because I realize that it isn't a perfect comparison. However if I had an event or two or three that lost money every year or several that were non-performing I would be a fool to keep doing that. I would try something different and in this scenario I would see if fewer events would then create more demand for each event to then improve the bottom line.

People often say that SCCA isn't in the business of making money and that might be true on some level, but not really. How many times have we heard that "well if only SCCA had a bigger budget.....if only SCCA could afford this or that...."

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Events are regional. So it's the regions budget. Not SCCA as a whole.....

Here in CalClub I think there is only 7 club racing events this year.
http://www.calclub.com/calendar.php

And only 4 at the track it owns.....
The club track is booked for approx 130 days this year. So 126 revenue days....

So as a member of the club, if they make money from the track to put on those 4 events (or even all 7 when they pay other tracks), I'm all for that.....

If you reduce the number of events it will not move all those participants to the new/few dates. Personal schedules conflicts, etc.

Like I said before, if your closed one day it doesn't guarantee the people will come back the next....

[budawe]

One of the leading reasons for starting the Majors program was that the national market had been overrun with events. This year, there were 24 majors races. 6 races in each conference that spread the competition around the country. Major's dates were agreed upon between the hosting regions and the national office. In prior years, national events were approaching 100 events per year.

Regionals are scheduled by the local regions. That sounded redundant but regions do get together in the off season and try to coordinate the schedules. As pointed out previously, there are many factors to complicate the process. Not least of which are available track weekends. Out here on the west coast we have a really long racing season but in the northern areas of the country, the season may only be weeks long. Competition is intense for what's available so holding on to historically traditional weekends makes sense.

[rgr1racing]

Would it be feasible to change the Runoffs to a July or August date for the following reasons:

1)Weather is more likely to be dry and sunny in mid to late summer

2)Majors racing begins for the next year the week after the Runoffs which lengthens each region's calendar.

3)Allow more family involvement; those competitors with kids or grandkids that may want them to attend are not competing with school calendars (with the exception of year round school calendars)

4)Amortize cost across a longer season: Events in the weather challenged areas can be held in Sept-Oct and then Mar-July which allows competitors a longer time period to stretch their racing dollars than a typical Mar-Aug schedule (Northeast Division as an example)

5)This is not an effort to increase the numbers for Runoffs participation but rather a way to make each Region attract more competitors so each event will be profitable. Apart from the diehard Runoffs competitors there are a lot of "fringe" competitors that will run a few extra events to qualify for the Runoffs; whether they attend the Big Event or not changing the beginning and ending of an annual calendar can increase participation numbers which can lead to more profitable venues for the Regions.

Thoughts and comments?

[Todd Butler]

I honestly think we have too much "product" out there in some places and are competing against ourselves for limited numbers of drivers. We need to do a much better job of schedule coordination in geographic areas between regions and even divisions. As pointed out above this was one of the objectives accomplished by the Majors, reduce the number of events, leading to increases in the car count and presumably more/better competition.

Regions/Divisions are going to have to do more negotiating, more sharing of events on the schedule and less direct or back to back weekend scheduling competition in their neighborhoods going forward.

To some degree it's is a market driven solution, but on the other hand we don't want regions going under and losing racing programs either. There needs to be a happy middle ground.

One other note, while SCCA and most regions are not necessarily "for profit" organizations, they still have to make money on events to cover event cost, office overhead, equipment replacement, cover the cost of the (hopefully few) events that lose money etc so events do have to be profitable overall.

Todd Butler
Area 13 Director
Disclaimer: What Brian said

[Kevin Coulter]

There is one piece to this discussion that is missing, at least in regards to some parts of the country. We can (and have) request all of the dates that we want, and lay them out perfectly with our neighboring divisions. No conflicts, minimal back to backs, etc.

But then the tracks say you can't have that date. If you want to run, you have to take this date instead. So much for our alignment.

It's not like we aren't trying, but it does need to be recognized that there is a bigger force outside of SCCA control, particularly in parts of the country that lose half the year due to weather. Less dates for tracks to rent to other clubs, less availability due to pro dates, etc. compresses everything.

Kevin

[butch deer]

I think one problem is the SCCA can no longer support a two tier system of club racing, Plus a third tier of Low level (pro) racing that has mostly former club racers participating. I do not think that there will be a minor(formerly regional) in the Great Lakes or Cendiv that has more than 100 entries and there will be some that looses money. Meanwhile they are running Majors with highly under subscribed run groups. but not allowing regional only classes that could easily fit. Combine club racing to one level of event.