>> And I have to agree too. My only serious cheeze-off this year about the
>> whole SM experience was the number of regions that actively discouraged
>> people from trying to run SM. Regions that have an OSP or OSP-like class
>> have a better excuse than those that don't. (So it's hard to get mad at
the
>> San Fransisco folks, who had OSP for a loooong time. I can understand
their
>> reluctance to split their existing class into SM and non-SM-legal-OSP)
> SFR supported both SM and SM-Rookie classes all season long, as well as
our OSP
> class. OSP averaged 17 entrants, SM averaged 7 per event. Please keep
the
> facts straight.
Huh, go figure. I had been led to believe that SFR had not run SM, as they
already had a long-established OSP class.
Well, good on SFR then.
And for the record, SFR was one of the regions I was NOT cheezed at,
precicely because I knew about their long OSP history. So you can un-knot
your shorts there Kevin.
And no, I'm not going to start naming regions, because I see no need to
start picking fights. I'm hoping that the regions who chose to chase away
would-be SM competitors will see that SM ran at Nationals, and do the right
thing and offer SM next season.
Well, a guy can hope, can't he?
DG
|