[Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)

[Rocky Entriken]

In 1973 we had 15 classes at the first Solo Nationals, which included one 
Ladies class on Index. Or, as a practical matter 14 classes in which 224 
drivers competed. That's an average of 16 cars per class.

in 2009 we had 38 separate classes, all but the FJs having parallel Ladies' 
classes. We had 1148 entrants, or an average of 30.2 entrants each. of 
course, when you include the Ladies classes we had 72, and that included 16 
"empty or close to it" (one trophy, or in two cases, none). But I believe my 
proposal does not go to the extreme, but backs away from it. It says if we 
have a class of one or two or three cars (or up to six), well you people 
have fun, enjoy the event, but you haven't risen to the level of champion. 
However, you might next year because we aren't taking your class away. You 
have nothing to fear, but you do have the possibility of striving to achieve 
something better.

We anointed 67 champions this year, plus five "winners" of supplemental 
classes (two of which had four drivers in trophies). Had my proposal been in 
effect, we'd have crowned 49 champions and declared 23 "winners." It would 
have made the mantle of champion more exclusive and more deserving, which 
still not disenfranchising anybody.

I don't think that just because someone came up with Street Touring as a 
good idea (and it was), adding eight more total classes to the mix, that 
that should mean members with many years' investment -- financial and 
emotional -- in their Prep or Mod cars should have to be on some artificial 
bubble or have to worry that their years of involvement in SCCA can be wiped 
away because some relative newbie (who may not have even been born yet when 
some of us began doing this) thinks we should eliminate classes just so we 
can have fewer classes. When the average entry nowadays is five times what 
it was at the beginning, but the total number of classes has merely doubled, 
I think "too many classes" is a bogus issue. (But if you think it's too many 
for local events, then combine 'em or revise 'em. The rules let you do 
that.)

IMHO, the new classes we have are in response to members wanting to compete 
under that kind of concept, and good for them. That doesn't invalidate those 
who want to continue competing with the earlier concepts. But again, if it 
becomes obvious to the SEB they need to do something about a class, they've 
never needed a Rule 4.9 to do it. All 4.9 does is create an artificial Sword 
of Damocles hanging over the heads of those in the threatened classes. There 
Is No Need to have threatened classes. It is counterproductive to the 
concept of SCCA sportsmanship.

--Rocky Entriken

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Sirota" <mark at sirota.org>
To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky at spitfire4.com>; <autox at autox.team.net>; "Clemens 
Burger" <burgerc at iquest.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 3)


> --On November 4, 2009 4:15:00 PM -0600 Rocky Entriken 
> <rocky at spitfire4.com> wrote:
>>> My planned letter to the SEB -- and I had this plan before the BoD
>>> action  in Club Racing -- is that we quit trying to define what
>>> constitutes a  class and instead define what constitutes a champion.
>
> I've been out of action for several years now and I don't know what has 
> transpired since then, but a concern I have about this is that every class 
> comes with a cost.
>
> The engine that runs SCCA Solo involves quite a lot of volunteer time -- 
> it's a very expensive commodity.  And every class has rules, particularly 
> the lower-participation classes in the higher modification categories, 
> because every class doesn't just share rules with other classes in the 
> category.  There are letters, discussions, clarifications, etc. and all of 
> this takes a lot of time.  Most of the members don't see the amount of 
> time that goes in, but trust me, it's a lot.
>
> So there's real value in keeping the number of classes to a reasonable 
> minimum.
>
> Rocky, if you take your proposal to the extreme, do classes ever go away? 
> Will there be dozens of classes someday, many of them empty or close to 
> it?
>
> The flip side of this argument is that quite a lot of time and effort is 
> spent figuring out what to do with the smaller classes, to bring their 
> numbers up or to resolve the "problem" in other ways.  They probably get a 
> disproportionate amount of effort, compared to their participation levels. 
> Just ignoring the problem may be cheaper than trying to address it.
>
> Mark