> We average between 120 to 140 entrants, but with 39 different classes to
> enter, it doesn't take a math whiz to see what the real problem is.
I'm trying to figure out how you ended up with 39?!? With a typical 26 open
classes (by the book), OSP, Street Tire, Street Touring (ST, STR, STU), and
PAX, you've got 32 choices. Or you have 52 classes (by the book) plus any
additionals when you consider parallel Ladies classes. You're leaving a lot
out or you have way, way too many.
>The statistical average per class would be..........quick now :-)
Enough to provide 3-way battles in all your classes? :-)
> FWIW, most of our single car guys here (and I have spoken to
> them) would PREFER someone to run against.
If they really want someone to run against, then why don't they run
in your PAX class? Or, as Mark has suggested, run in an
appropriate higher category such as D/EM?
> But again, the real issue is too many classes for the number of
> cars. We have done it to ourselves.
Couldn't agree more! One should add classes only when one can expect growth,
not merely shifting around the existing base.
> Open SCCA classes actually have the smallest participation! Perhaps we
> should just cut those out? ;-)
How about cutting it down to AM (specials) & EM (production-based)? :-)
> Gee - so he isn't allowed to state his views because they differ from
> others Or yours)? Should he quietly sit by until it is deemed safe to
> speak out, or just recognize the error of his ways and quietly go away?
Yes, he should state his views. Stating your views, listening to the other
views, and adjusting the viewpoint works very well. Mark's postings on
this subject, however, have consistently ignored the problems others
bring up with his approach. He merely dismissed them with "humour"
and hasn't offered any constructive counter proposals. With
what I've read so far, I find it difficult to believe he sincerely wishes to
solve the problem under this thread.
> Mark does not take the popular or easy route, is an independent thinker,
> and our region is far better off thanks to what he has done in the past
> and continues to do now.
Good to hear!
> BTW, the SEB has some old baggage of their own and has not always
> (in retrospect) been right :-)
Right you are! Mark's approach, however, doesn't let one construct
solutions when he doesn't address the critiques of his proposals, so it
really is easy for me see why he would generate that sort of response.
George Emery
gemery@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/gemery
|