[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Ladies classes

To: "Mark J. Andy" <>,
Subject: RE: Ladies classes
From: Sam & Greg Scharnberg <>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:23:02 -0500
At 01:23 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Mark J. Andy wrote:

>In my mind, having extra low-subscription classes (ladies or otherwise) 
>causes a few problems.
>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.

>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?

>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
their product.  Even the participants in under subscribed classes may be
persuaded to use their product.

>4. Low subscription classes that are clearly artificial bother me in

All of the present classes ARE ARTIFICIAL, maybe with the exception of A Mod. 
And A Mod still has restrictions!


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>