National points system

[Jim Christian]

What would you guys think about a change to the National points system as follows?

IF THERE ARE 10 OR [FONT=Arial]FEWER[/FONT] FINISHERS:
ONE POINT FOR EACH FINISHER BEATEN

IF THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 FINISHERS:
ONE POINT FOR EACH CAR BEATEN IN THE TOP 10
3 BONUS POINTS FOR FIRST
2 BONUS POINTS FOR SECOND

IF THERE ARE MORE THAN 20 FINISHERS:
ONE POINT FOR EACH CAR BEATEN IN THE TOP 10
6 BONUS POINTS FOR FIRST
4 BONUS POINTS FOR SECOND
2 BONUS POINTS FOR THIRD

This is just a brain storming exercise not an official proposal!

Jim C.

[Keith Carter]

I LIKE the suggestion very much. It would prevent the cherry picking of points from the lesser populated divisions. I also think something like this would reward top 10 positions for events like the June Sprints where you would otherwise be given very few points for actually finishing in the top 30% of the field.

[Paul LeCain]

What is the goal here?

Won't this system kill participation at smaller events? Why go, when, even if you win, you'll get few or no points?

There are only two classes (SM and SRF) where combining the two largest regions (NE and SE) gives an average over 10 participants.

I think any system we consider should reward winning more than the current system does. The current three point spread in the 12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 system should be at least 4, preferably 5.

The numbers I used for particiation came from here:

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_E...ion_MASTER.pdf

[Stan Clayton]

Just a technical note, Paul, but SM and SRF average over 10 cars per race in all Divisions except SRF in MWDiv. And NEDiv averaged 12 FVs this year.

Stan

[Paul LeCain]

Stan,

You're right.

I editted the post to say that I combined the two largest divisions (NE and SE) to get the averages I used.

[John LaRue]

JC, I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I can't say that I have ever heard anyone complain about the point system. The problem as I see it is not with the system, but with the lack of competitors. Limit the number of Nationals. rejoin Cen Div and Great Lakes, shorten the race weekend,....those things might help entires.

Ketih I dont see any need for cherry picking as you can pretty much go to any National excepting Sprints and score points. Perhaps that happened in years past, but I have a hard time believing much of that occurs now and if so, who cares? For that matter, toss out the point requirement for Runoffs and simply require a certain level of participation to qualify. If the class is oversubscribed start the fastest 30, the rest go home.

[Keith Carter]

John, I guess you're right. It was harder to get into the top 10 legitimately when the CenDiv and Great Lakes areas were together and that's what I was thinking of when I read the post. I guess now with the split (and the f2000 series stealing a lot of competition from the GL area), as long as I showed at a national event I would score enough points to be in the top 10 to get the invite to the Runoffs. Hell, I only finished 2 races this season and scored enough points to get an invite to the Runoffs. I just believe that sometimes the points championship can be an incorrect representation of the competition in a division since there are always those "small" out of division races where an easy 12 or 9 points can be picked up. Maybe they should weigh out of division races less than your normal in division schedule.

[Jim Christian]

Gentlemen,
The idea was to make national points more of a reflection of racing success, than a method of taking attendance.
Jim Christian

[John LaRue]

Jim,

I can certainly appreciate that aspect, but it seems as though this is an excersise akin to rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. To me it would seem appropriate that the BOD figures out how to get the participation numbers up first. To me that would be a first priority. The only decent field of FC or FF all season around here was Sprints and that wasn't spectacular. GL and CenDiv numbers are pathetic and the lack of cars gives one little reason to even go to the track.

[Bill Steele]

The idea was to make national points more of a reflection of racing success, than a method of taking attendance.
Jim Christian

Jim,

I have another angle on the "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" theme.

In the SF region there are only two local national events each year. They are held as a double national between the SF and Reno regions on the same weekend in mid-March! At this year's double national "Gathering of Champs" a total of eight FF's started both days.

At the most recent regional race at Laguna Seca which ended yesterday there were 15 FF's entered (along with 23 CF's for a nice field.)

So the real problem is attendance, or perhaps better said, interest in National Racing.

In the SF region there are a number of classes where the really fast guys race each other at regional races and don't even attend the national events because for various reasons they have no interest in national racing.

So I guess I would have to agree with the general feelings of others that we have bigger problems than the method for accounting for national points.

You see, while a National Championship has to be sweet for anyone who wins one, I can say with authority three of the best FF drivers in the country are definitely not going to be there.