2016 run offs

well, if you believe the final nationwide point standings list, there are only 14 of us qualified to go to the run offs this year via majors, no idea how many will qualify via divisionals... i believe it is still you need 10 people to make a national champion, otherwise it is just a runoffs race winner...

8 are signed up so far.. so, how bout you others?
Raymond Mason
Becker Reardon
Thomas Green
Dennis Marklein
Tom Muffler
Barry Luterek

and if qual by division, chime in and let us know if you are coming...

New for this year. If there are less than 10 entries, the class still has a national champion, but the class is on probation and if there is less than 10 the following year, then there is no national champion.
I know Becker Reardon and Dennis Marklein plan to go along with a few other possible entries.

As of right now, we're registered. But, it's still very iffy for me. I am trying to work remotely for that week and am waiting to get clearance. With that, is there Wi-Fi at Mid-Ohio?

I don't know if Mid-Ohio has public wifi but I was just there all weekend in the paddock areas and also had to work remotely. The hot spot on my phone worked just fine so the cell signal was strong. We were steaming live video over it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zookie

I don't know if Mid-Ohio has public wifi but I was just there all weekend in the paddock areas and also had to work remotely. The hot spot on my phone worked just fine so the cell signal was strong. We were steaming live video over it as well.

---

Using Hotspot is my backup. It sounds like I won't have a problem getting logged in. Now, I just have to get permission to be out of the office...

It was really depressing to see only 14 drivers are allowed to register for the runoffs. I am still struggling with the logic of these "majors" weekends and then forcing people to run 3 of them in a season just to have an option of running at the runoffs. SCCA is just slowly cutting the throats of us weekend warriors.

I too am registered but I am starting to have second thoughts about spending the whole week away from work and family for a race with only 8-10 participants. The reduction of Hoosier contingency doesn't help motivate me as well.

Dean

Im I wrong to doubt SCCA will turn away money? I would think if you want to play all you got to do is pay. Since all of the FE's are literally in two conferences you would think they would cut everyone some slack. Top 3 of each conference (except for SRF and SM which is top 5) is how you get an "invitation" correct?

Here is 2016 RunOffs qualification flow chart

So 3 majors events and finish in top 50% in your conference. I think there was 24+ FE's in the northern conference.

Hypothetical question. Suppose 24 FE's competed in a conference then 12 would be eligible using the top 50% rule. What if 2 of the top 12 only competed in 2 majors events (making them not eligible) would SCCA then allow the next 2 FE's that competed in 3 or more majors events to compete in the runoffs?

The reason only 14 are qualified is because of their participation throughout the season. 23 (top half of 46 drivers that raced in 2016) could have gone, but 8 only ran 2 weekends and 1 only ran 1 weekend. If you look at Divisionals, you have to race in 4 qualifying WEEKENDS in the SAME Division. CenDiv only had 1 that qualified under that scenario but he also qualified under the Majors path.

Maybe we're looking at this differently, but if you only raced 2 weekends this year you should not be able to run the Runoffs.

Looking at 2017 it will only take 46 points to qualify for the Runoffs. That could be accomplished in one weekend. My series has been about participation during the year, regardless of your intentions of running the Runoffs. The Regions need car counts. I'm pretty sure we won't be lamenting low participation at the 2017 Runoffs.

Regarding your question, its very likely that the two that finished out of the top half in that conference would still be qualified under the nationwide system. If they were in the top 50% of the Nation they would qualify, or if they had more points than the top 50% of the prior year they would qualify. No one in the country ran 3 weekends and did not qualify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SStadel

The reason only 14 are qualified is because of their participation throughout the season. 23 (top half of 46 drivers that raced in 2016) could have gone, but 8 only ran 2 weekends and 1 only ran 1 weekend. If you look at Divisionals, you have to race in 4 qualifying WEEKENDS in the SAME Division. CenDiv only had 1 that qualified under that scenario but he also qualified under the Majors path.

Maybe we're looking at this differently, but if you only raced 2 weekends this year you should not be able to run the Runoffs.

Looking at 2017 it will only take 46 points to qualify for the Runoffs. That could be accomplished in one weekend. My series has been about participation during the year, regardless of your intentions of running the Runoffs. The Regions need car counts. I'm pretty sure we won't be lamenting low participation at the 2017 Runoffs.

---

I agree with you completely that nobody should be able to compete in the runoffs with only 2 majors weekends. I was just curious if it mattered one way or the other.

We ran 2 majors and a regional this year. I don't think that should qualify for the runoffs (which is doesn't) but we weren't ever planning on attending this year. Next year, however, you can count on us at the Runoffs. I am thinking we will run with you at Gingerman, Black Hawk, and both Road America majors. My first Runoffs will be at Indianapolis which is right in my back yard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SStadel

Maybe we're looking at this differently, but if you only raced 2 weekends this year you should not be able to run the Runoffs.

---

As a guy who has made my living growing race series, I don't understand the logic behind limiting a class that isn't full.

In a class that has a full run group, I get it. But with space on the grid, why tell talented racers that want to support the class to stay home?

Seems odd to me to have two CSR's and Robey trying so hard to grow this class, while at the same time being ok with it going on probation for low entries.


Andy

You are wrong that they won't turn away the money. Elliot got his license July 13. We bought a car on July 18. Drove to Atlanta to get it and raced a divisional race at Road Atlanta July 23 & 24, the cat majors the next weekend and the gratttan majors. I entered the runoffs and tried to get a waiver and they told us no. We have withdrawn.

Elliot is 7th in points in Northern conference and 15th in national points out of 46 who raced an FE this year. He has 71 points, it doesn't matter. Sorry but I will never understand the exclusionary practices of this club. It's a club that we pay for. When you tell your members they can't do what they want, they soon quit.

At risk of hurting feelings...
Those rules were created for specific reasons.
#1 was prevent "ringers" from showing up at the Runoffs and winning a national championship and taking it away from folks that raced all year to earn a chance.
Without rules like they have, Pro drivers could just jump in cars (with little qualifying races) at the Runoffs and win national championships to brag about.

That is why you review things on a case by case basis, not just say we never do that. You can't rail against the club doing business as usual in one thread and then argue for it in another. Time for things to change. My regional director told me story of how he had to race against 295 competitors to get high enough in the points to go to the runoffs. In the old days maybe these rules made sense, today they don't. GT1 has 7 entries, FE has 8, FM has less than 10! Talk about becoming insignificant. FE had 46 people race this year in a major, exactly what is the problem if everyone of them came to the runoffs?

While it would serve your purposes to open up the Runoffs to all comers, it doesn't serve the overall club, especially individual regions, who shoulder the financial responsibility for putting on all other races, including the Majors.

As far as the regions are concerned the Runoffs are irrelevant to their program unless participating in the event requires participation in a minimum number of Region sponsored events.

If you want to change that, convince enough of the SCCA membership to support the changes necessary to make it so. You will find, however, that Club Racing membership, including drivers and volunteer staff, no longer make up a majority of the organization and most Solo members are primarily concerned about their local events, again, sponsored by their local region. What you're suggesting will be viewed by them as a financial penalty to their local organization. One that could well require raising local Solo entry fees to cover the shortfall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Finlayson

That is why you review things on a case by case basis, not just say we never do that. You can't rail against the club doing business as usual in one thread and then argue for it in another. Time for things to change. My regional director told me story of how he had to race against 295 competitors to get high enough in the points to go to the runoffs. In the old days maybe these rules made sense, today they don't. GT1 has 7 entries, FE has 8, FM has less than 10! Talk about becoming insignificant. FE had 46 people race this year in a major, exactly what is the problem if everyone of them came to the runoffs?

---

So you are saying that regional participation would be reduced if the runoffs were open to all SCCA club racers? I would find that hard to believe since about 20% of the club racers attend the runoffs. I would say that almost no one joins SCCA and starts racing because of the runoffs. We do it because we want to race. We race the majors today because there are more people racing in our class at these races. If there were 20+ cars in every class, the majority of the members would race at whatever track was closest to there home. I seriously doubt that those members who only race 2 or 3 times a year would suddenly decide to make one of those 2 the runoffs. Most of us race as often as can afford too, and 1 more. The reason only 20% of the members attend the runoffs is the schedule and the high cost associated with that schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Finlayson

So you are saying that regional participation would be reduced if the runoffs were open to all SCCA club racers? I would find that hard to believe since about 20% of the club racers attend the runoffs. I would say that almost no one joins SCCA and starts racing because of the runoffs. We do it because we want to race. We race the majors today because there are more people racing in our class at these races. If there were 20+ cars in every class, the majority of the members would race at whatever track was closest to there home. I seriously doubt that those members who only race 2 or 3 times a year would suddenly decide to make one of those 2 the runoffs. Most of us race as often as can afford too, and 1 more. The reason only 20% of the members attend the runoffs is the schedule and the high cost associated with that schedule.

---

I think that what Peter is saying is that having to enter a certain number of events in order to qualify for the Runoffs is one of the factors generating entries at events.

Remember that it is regions who take on the entire business risk of staging regionals and Majors. The National Office's business risk is confined to the Runoffs alone.

If, for example, one had to enter 10 events in order to qualify for the Runoffs, that would tend to generate more entries than if one could just enter the Runoffs w/o having done any qualifying races.

And it must be said that, with the exception of a very few heavily-subscribed classes, it is fairly easy to accumulate enough qualifying points once one has entered the bare minimum number of events.

If one starts the season with the intent of going to the Runoffs, it is generally easy enough to get there. If one starts in the middle of July, maybe less so ...

John,
I understand what Peter is saying, respectfully I couldn't agree less. Since 75-80% of the club racers don't attend the runoffs, I'd say a change in the requirements either way would have little to no affect on division races. Using your example of 10 races to qualify would raise divisional attendance is absurd. I'd say a large portion of those who do attend the runoffs can't afford to race 10 races if they were held in their backyard. Some would likely quit resulting in fewer people at regional races.

Then all you have to do is convince enough members to support your idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Finlayson

John,
I understand what Peter is saying, respectfully I couldn't agree less. Since 75-80% of the club racers don't attend the runoffs, I'd say a change in the requirements either way would have little to no affect on division races. Using your example of 10 races to qualify would raise divisional attendance is absurd. I'd say a large portion of those who do attend the runoffs can't afford to race 10 races if they were held in their backyard. Some would likely quit resulting in fewer people at regional races.

---

What proposal? I don't remember making a proposal. In fact my original post was in response to someone else saying that SCCA would take the money from anyone. I pointed out that Elliot was 7th in our conference, 15th in national points, had only raced 2 majors and they wouldn't give him a waiver. I do think that they should judge each case on its own merit and not just say "that's the way we've always done it ". It's time for a change. I don't know either of you but I can only assume you race FV since the rest of the winged classes are in danger of being on probation. Some don't think that's an issue because we have Indy to save us in 2017. I'm not so sure since the biggest reason I hear for not going to the runoffs is the time and money. Indy isn't going to change that though I do believe a perhaps once in a lifetime destination will have a positive impact. What about after that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Finlayson

What proposal? I don't remember making a proposal. In fact my original post was in response to someone else saying that SCCA would take the money from anyone. I pointed out that Elliot was 7th in our conference, 15th in national points, had only raced 2 majors and they wouldn't give him a waiver. I do think that they should judge each case on its own merit and not just say "that's the way we've always done it ". It's time for a change. I don't know either of you but I can only assume you race FV since the rest of the winged classes are in danger of being on probation. Some don't think that's an issue because we have Indy to save us in 2017. I'm not so sure since the biggest reason I hear for not going to the runoffs is the time and money. Indy isn't going to change that though I do believe a perhaps once in a lifetime destination will have a positive impact. What about after that though.

---

It is a few years since I have been close to BOD deliberations, even at second hand. However, I do recall a number of cases that were truly compelling, much more so than "I just joined the class so I need an exception." Not a single one got a waiver.

No-Runoffs-waiver is deeply ingrained in the Club DNA.

Have you read the GCR on the subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Finlayson

What proposal? I don't remember making a proposal. In fact my original post was in response to someone else saying that SCCA would take the money from anyone. I pointed out that Elliot was 7th in our conference, 15th in national points, had only raced 2 majors and they wouldn't give him a waiver. I do think that they should judge each case on its own merit and not just say "that's the way we've always done it ". It's time for a change. I don't know either of you but I can only assume you race FV since the rest of the winged classes are in danger of being on probation. Some don't think that's an issue because we have Indy to save us in 2017. I'm not so sure since the biggest reason I hear for not going to the runoffs is the time and money. Indy isn't going to change that though I do believe a perhaps once in a lifetime destination will have a positive impact. What about after that though.

---

"I do think that they should judge each case on its own merit..."

Or, the SCCA could just create a rule and stick with it. Then everyone gets treated the same fair way.

Oh yeah! Sunday night debates!
OBTW, if the Runoffs could be attended without restriction, then YES the guy that only races 3 to 4 times a year would drop a few of those local races and do the Runoffs instead. Let me think... am I going to do a regional at Grattan or am I going to do the frekin' big party at the Runoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Oh yeah! Sunday night debates!
OBTW, if the Runoffs could be attended without restriction, then YES the guy that only races 3 to 4 times a year would drop a few of those local races and do the Runoffs instead. Let me think... am I going to do a regional at Grattan or am I going to do the frekin' big party at the Runoffs.

---

I hope to be back in the seat next year and I WILL BE GOING TO GRATTAN.

I seem to recall that when we loosened the runoffs restrictions a few (5-6) years ago it killed the entries forout of division races at the start of the year in Florida etc - pre majors era. It was immediately tightened back up the following year. It does affect the Club Racing entries all year
The minimum requirement is one of the few things that the BOD has held to no waivers - although that minimum has changed year to year

Robert, I am with you. I too have had SCCA turn their nose up at me for some lame rule and not allow me to run at the Runoffs. Even though I am one of the most consistent contestants in the Northern Region. The money I and my family have spent with the SCCA over the years is insane.

However, it only takes 2 weddings and a graduation party to miss 3 events in your region. Everyone needs to remember this is not suppose to be for professional racecar drivers with an endless cash supply. We all have lives and priorities outside of racing that could cause us to miss a couple weekends. Then what happens if we fall out of a race early and not get credit for a finish. Then we have to spend thousands more to try and find another event to attend.

I think there should be different rules for different classes. I see how the rules work for classes like SRF and SM. However, for FE it is obviously not working. There are plenty of people racing FE that we could have 20+ cars at the runoffs. However, SCCA makes it so expensive to qualify, so difficult to make it to enough races, they make it so difficult to take a whole week off for 4 15 min sessions (don't get me started on that), and their inability to bend or make any exceptions.

I think the One Formula Series is much better. I just wish there were more regionals in it (hint, hint). More quality track time at a cheaper rate. Last year was awesome Steve. Thanks again.

Dean Oppermann

9 registered with 2 days left before it closes out...

makes me think they may toss us in with FM again this year, they only have 8 signed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KAMcDonald

9 registered with 2 days left before it closes out...

makes me think they may toss us in with FM again this year, they only have 8 signed up

---

They've revised the schedule and we've been grouped with FM for qualifying.

Keith,

They made that change over a month ago.

I was under the impression that car counts this year were significantly up East of the Mississippi.

Any insight in to why those to took part in the Majors are not opting to race at the Runoffs?

We ran two majors and a regional. Had to run the regional to get full comp license and not enough funds to run another majors plus runoffs. Decided to save for indy next year

i knew about the qualifiers being together, i meant that they might try to put us together for the race due to low counts...

Congratulations to Scott on the win and Hanna for coming in second! It was a great event. I found the track to be very challenging to learn and even more challenging in the slick morning sessions. But, it was fun. I can't wait for Indy next year :D!

Watched the race last week. Great show for the second place battle, announcers seemed to have it right. How do you guys like the AR tires ?