> Jeff, I have to admitt you are losing me on some of your analysis, but I
>guess I'm
> getting the drift....you don't like CP and you think SM and SM2 are soft.
>I'm thinking
> there is a good chance we might find both of these classes a little quicker
>than what
> your available data indicates.
You are correct that I do think SM and SM2 are soft. But they are soft because
of the
*unavoidable* reason of them being new classes. I agree you that we might find
them
quicker than what the forecasts state. Since they're new, the growth curve
accelerates
more at first, so it's more likely that they do better at Topeka than they did
earlier in
the year than with mature classes. I like SM/SM2 and think they are great for
the SCCA in
the long term.
I don't like CP because the CP class on average is too anti-everyone else (they
have even
said they would prefer not to even be in the SCCA and hold their own
nationals). If they
could just have fun (which they do extremely well) without all the anti-stuff,
I wouldn't
care one way or the other that they're soft. But they're so full of themselves,
I think a
dose of reality is good for them.
Also, I only recently thought they were soft ... after a national champion who
has
competed in a variety of preparation categories told me this. Then yesterday,
after
looking at the numbers, it wasn't just one knowledgable person saying it, the
numbers
spoke for themselves.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|