I knew better than to reply the first time, but......
At 03:34 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Mark J. Andy wrote:
>Howdy,
>
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Sam & Greg Scharnberg wrote:
>> >1. It adds overhead to the event. Extra classes to keep track of, extra
>> >trophies to present.
>> >
>>
>> They also add revenue to the event! In most instances, cost decrease as
total
>> # of entries increase. I expect Nationals is the same.
>
>So you beleive that all those folks in ladies would quit if the classes
>were dropped? Of my admittedly super-small sample pool of ladies drivers
>I know, I believe _all_ of them would contiue to run if ladies classes
>were dropped.
I never said that or implied that ladies would quit. Nor did I say
under-subscribed class entrants would quit. I said, "As the total # of
entries increase, revenue increases and expenses decrease." Therefore, your
#1 reason to eliminate under subscribed classes is NOT valid. There is NO
overhead added to the event, but maybe instead there is revenue. Period!
>> >2. It potentially de-values "competitive" wins in other classes.
>>
>> What are competitive wins? The number in class, the margin of victory, or
>> what? A win is a win whether it be by .001 or by 10 seconds and whether
there
>> are 2 or 20 in class. How does a Championship in one class de-value a
>> Championship in another?
>
>I don't think you really beleive that.
If you are referencing, a "win is a win", YES, I do believe a win is a win! I
do not care if it involves individuals or teams.
> Perhaps its just me that doesn't.
>However, I bet that if I call up Jean Kinser and offer to be an
>instructor, after all I'm the CP ProSolo National Champion! (grn.), that
>she'd be pretty surprised.
Go for it!
> That someone who is even a tiny bit removed
>from the ProSolo crowd can't distinguish between my award (and by
>inference my driving ability) and Erik Strelnieks' award to me
>artificially inflates my award and devalues his.
>
You are de-valueing your own award and NOT Erik's.
>> >3. It potentially dillutes the sponser/contingency pool.
>>
>> I really do not see a correlation here to low-subscription classes.
Companies
>> target a particular market (like soloists) not a particular class. They
want
>> to promote their product to the masses and influence the targeted market to
>> use
>> their product. Even the participants in under subscribed classes may be
>> persuaded to use their product.
>
>"dillutes" in the sense that other more deserving drivers don't get
>awards, not in the sense that those sponsors won't participate. I think
>it makes sense that a company who wants to offer contingency for 60
>classes will offer a shallower payout for each class than if there were 30
>classes.
"Other more deserving drivers don't get awards" and how do you determine
"DESERVING drivers?" Not all classes have contingency. Mainly,
contingency is
for Stock and Street Prepared. Contingency should have never come into
play in
this amateur sport IMHO, but it did :-( How many benefit from contingencies?
How many compete because of contingency? Contingency is only a carrot for
those who want it to be.
>> >4. Low subscription classes that are clearly artificial bother me in
>> >theory.
>>
>> All of the present classes ARE ARTIFICIAL, maybe with the exception of A
Mod.
>> And A Mod still has restrictions!
>
>Artificial true, but _based on performance differentiators_. I don't
>believe sex is a performance differentiator.
And I believe sex is a big differentiate (not in motorsports
however)..........brains versus brawn. :-)
Sam
>Mark
>
|