Gemery@aol.com wrote:
> Maybe I should remind you of several of your own shots? Oh, right,
> those were humour...
True, but I didn't think they were cheap...:-)
> Yes, I was cranky from work when I wrote, but have you considered
> the points I reacted to or do you still consider it "stirring up a bee's nest"
> and could care less?
I don't consider it "stirring up a bee's nest" at all. I try to challenge
the boundaries and ask people to see other perspectives. In the process
I may come across critical, but IMO that usually happens if the reader
has a personal sensitivity to the issue or as you say "was cranky."
> Okay, then your region can do something about it. And I think Scott
> has your answer with their being too many classes available to
> your region... get your region to cut down on the available classes!
I think you missed a point in Scott's message. True more classes cause
the competition to be more spread thin, but you have to ask why are these
other classes drawing so much interest? What I left out of the numbers
is that we actually have some much entry in our PAX classes that we had to
bust them into several. We have TWO Street Tire classes basically divided
by the SCCA classes which have V8s or not AND STILL we have around 10 entries
in each. We also split Novice the same way and run about 10 each there.
The PAX men's and Ladies pull down about 12 together. The only other
classes to have significant entries are SS, BSP, and DS which happen
to get attention because we have a lot of Corvettes in this region and
some Neons.
So, you say to cut down on available classes? Well we sure cannot
do away with those popular ones, so that means we need to hack out
some of the poorly subscribed SCCA classes. Is that what you suggest?
Hmmm. Makes it sound like you are in favor of doing away with single
car classes afterall.
> Please point out what statements I made about AZ Region!
Well, if you can react to my use of the word YOU to mean that it
includes YOUR region, then what am I supposed to think when you
attack with the same phrasing?
> > Hello? Try substituting the word "ANY" for "YOUR" in my statement.
>
> I'm supposed to be a mind reader? You respond to my email and you
> used the word YOUR. I'll make a note that you're not really talking to
> me in the above statements about cheap shots :-)
This isn't a point of mind reading, it happens to be a literary style
to use the term YOUR in a generic fashion, especially when the postings
here are going out to more people than just yourself.
> ........................... Maybe what you really, really meant
> to write was "Regions that do not consolidate the SCCA classes
> in ways that will enhance competition and growth will have a
> problem with single-car entries."
Sounds reasonable to me except I would not restrict the reasons
to consolidate to just enhanced competition and growth, but towards
customer demand, as well.
> Employ bumping (either via the Appendix or your own method) as a
> way to remove single car classes for year-end points and here are
> the problems I foresee:.....
The problems you state are a result of sticking rigidly to the
Appendix B. I have never advocated that approach (while several
people have inferred that I do). By "volunatry bumping" I mean
that you let the entrant decide to which of the valid classes
they could move to (i.e. ES Golf to DSP to EP to DM). They would make
that choice at each event, but just like somebody who jumps around
in cars/classes they will affect their series standings. I really
think bumping works best if you have single event trophies/awards.
I really favor other class structures like PAX classes because they
have consistently shown that they will be subscribed and it is easier
for the entrant to pick one and stay with it all series.
> Adding classes for regional tastes works great for tailoring a program
> to bulk up the membership, but has it's own problems:
Again, you indicate that the only reason to do this is to increase
participation. We do it to provide the competition groupings people
would rather have. Street Tire is subscribed because it removes the
need to buy "R" tires and just drive to the event. It is just more
fun. Without it most would probably drift back to the regular classes
but wouldn't feel they were competitive unless they go out and buy tires.
(the fun factor drops).
> a) Better ensure one is increasing participation rather than taking
> away from established programs.
I disagree that "established" programs do now or have ever existed. They
could more correctly be called the only "available" programs. My challenge
to those that fear the "established" programs will fade is "they will fade
in favor of something else only if they are not what people want." And what
is wrong with that?
> b) Adding classes dilutes competitors unless you get an increase
> in participate or remove classes that aren't working.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dilute" unless it refers to the fact that
you have too many people in the same class. We used to worry about this
and that is why we split our Street Tire and Novice classes, but they just
keep coming. Seems more people would rather be 10th in a class of 10 than
2nd in a class of 2. Throws another wrinkle into the single car class
debate, huh?
Mark
|