Charles R. Schultz wrote:
>I have evidence by way of the story of how I learned about solo II.
<snip story>
That's not evidence of a problem with Solo II, it's evidence of SCCA's failure
to market itself. If SCCA wants more visibility, what's to stop them from
running 30 second spots on television and/or placing half- or full-page ads in
enthusiast publications? This would not require a single change in the rules or
operation of any existing SCCA competition activity.
I'm not against better marketing of what's already here. I AM against wholesale
changes to the Solo II rules and operation just because it's alleged by a
handful of folks that the changes they want will make the sport more popular. I
also can't make myself believe that these individuals don't have substantial
self-interest in the changes they're proposing. It won't be the same sport, and
my money says it won't be more popular either. Popularity notwithstanding, I
like competing in Solo II. Apparently, so do tens of thousands of other folks.
If the potential market for our sport is larger than what we've already tapped,
then let's get the information to that market.
>Some say Solo II's not broken because fields are getting too big
>anyway.
Well, growth is what we're after, isn't it? I got my 2001 Nationals entry
packet in the mail yesterday, and there is a _cap_ of 1250 entries. If it's
gotten so popular that we can't let everyone in, why would any sane person want
to change the sport?
>They want to keep the secret to themselves.
Looks to me like the "secret" has already gotten out.
Jay
|