Reunification of GL & Cen DIV

[Phil Creighton]

First the two parties (area 4 and 5) have to agree to recombine - the BOD is very unlikely to impose that on them and I'm not even sure they have that power anyway. If you want it then lobby the respective REs to get it done not the BOD.

From this thread I can already see some of the stubborness and stupidity that caused the split creeping in. It seemed that compeitors took a back seat to the area officials on this one. I watched this all happen back then and the result was predictable. We have had similar disputes in the SE in both ends of the division and you can work through them without a divorce.
Phil

[DaveW]

First the two parties (area 4 and 5) have to agree to recombine - the BOD is very unlikely to impose that on them and I'm not even sure they have that power anyway. If you want it then lobby the respective REs to get it done not the BOD.

From this thread I can already see some of the stubborness and stupidity that caused the split creeping in. It seemed that compeitors took a back seat to the area officials on this one. I watched this all happen back then and the result was predictable. We have had similar disputes in the SE in both ends of the division and you can work through them without a divorce.
Phil

Phil, I am very sorry to have to do this, but I have to AGREE with you.

I wish re-combination would happen, but I think the disputes and stubbornness that caused the split won't just go away. So we will probably have to live with the GL and Central Divisions the way they are now.

It is disappointing, but considering the general US political dysfunction, why should this be different, and why should we be surprised?

[mblanc]

I was disapponted when the division was split, and was against it.

BUT

Given the current Runoffs requirements, I don't see what difference it makes now,
Currently, say you want to run just all the races 'In Division' you're ok.
If you want to run say 2 'In Division' (either side) and 2 or 3 on the other side, you're ok.
If you want to run say 4 'In Division' (either side) and 1 or 2 on the other side, you're ok.

Neither side has been real friendly (I'm only talking schedule here) for the racer, to swim across the lake. I think it is always hard for somebody to do back to back weekends. Prep shop, or an individual. And OFTEN races that are reasonably geographically close so there could be crossover, are scheduled on consecutive weekends. For me, they might as well be the same weekend, and I think have kept a lot of people from making the trip.

So, if there IS a re-unification, what will it help?
Just calling it one big area, vs two different, doesn't change how many weekends there are, nor how many racers, nor workers, nor the fact you only need just about a handful of finishes to get a Runoffs invite.

Why would it change the number of races?
Or will it just eliminate one 'Super Tour' date?

[butch deer]

What I'm not seeing is the effect the split had on regional racing. With 20 runoff invitations per class instead of the previous 10 lots of regional guys went to nationals because they now had a chance to qualify for the runoffs. It left smaller regional fields and probably killed the once successful East/West chalange series for FF.
I don't think recombing will bring it back.

[John LaRue]

From a Runoffs perspective I don't think it really does have much of an effect any longer. The new qualification requirements pretty much put an end to any contest to make the Runoffs field if that wasn't killed of at the time of the original splt. As I recall there was a good deal of bitching that it was too tough to make Runoffs in Cen Div as compared with other Divisions. Well congratulations, that is not the case any longer.

I never have had any issues racing anywhere. I had as much success in Area 4 as 5 and was always treated well everywhere I went. I don't recall too many back to back weekends other than perhaps the old Blackhawk races in late April and early May. Even there I thought that we had a week or two in between.

None the less, if this were to happen there would need to be a mutual effort to work out a schedule that would accomodate as many racers as possible. It would take everyone pulling up their big boy and big girl underwear and behaving like adults, not DC politicians. Will it make a difference in the end? I don't know, but I don't see how it can hurt. If we are conservative in the number of events we schedule and effectively pull from a larger pool of racers for these events how can it help but work?

Logic would to me dictate that a lesser number of events would increase participation figures "per event" so long as the number of events being offered does not dip to a point where alternative sanctioning organizations become more attractive. Moving from 11 to 8 or 9 events is not enough (in my opinion) to drive anyone away from the SCCA flock. Offering a reasonable number of races which draw from a larger pool of racers on the other hand would seem to me to be likely to drive up participation figures on a "per event" basis. If we do not agree that partcipation "per event" is the important figure then we will never see a mutually acceptable resolution.

Quite candidly I have doubts that reunification will ever happen. I simply hear too many reasons why we can't do this or how difficult it would be to put it back together. Hogwash. The split was a result of actions of the stewards and the executives in the Divisions, not the racers. Because the racers, the guys who actually lay their money down on a week to week basis to put a car on the track, don't spend the time to participate in the administration they don't carry much influence. The cause of the problem however cannot be put entirely at the feet of the stewards and executives who were in control; this mess is partially the racer's fault as they should stand and be heard. Eventually the racer's do speak with their wallets by turning to other sanctioning bodies or simply walking away from sports car racing. Unfortunately the Club, up to this point, has been too stubborn or perhaps naive to understand why the numbers decrease. Oh well.

So long as the Division is split we will never get the cross border racing as we saw it pre-split. It can be argued that the smaller grids are a result of class proliferation, economic pressures, the passage of time as well as the split. These are all plausible excuses, however I can just as easily point to the F2000/F1600 and soon to be FA pro series which belies those arguments and has shown a continuing expansion of participation numbers over the past several years. The reason behind their success is plain and simple; they are giving the participant what they want. Good car counts, reasonable track time, excellent run groups (not possible for SCCA...at least not at the moment) and good stewardship are all important components of the end product. Cen Div once had that in spades; ask those who raced at that time and they can tell you.

We can't resolve all of these issues in one sitting but we can take action to build car counts if we quit diluting the number of racers over two distinct Divisions and too many races. If this happens great, we all will win. If not we should not expect to see anything different than we have for the past 5 years. I can assure you the car counts won't increase if that is all that is being offered. Perhaps this is good enough?

One way or the other write your own letter to your RE and BOD to let them know your views.

Regards,

John

[KevinFirlein]

Like the SeDiv the NeDiv has so far been able to deal with the ramblings that come up every few years about splitting into 2 divisions. I feel bad for the old CenDiv members has they were part of a great division.

[Mike Kolthoff]

I do not know if a reverse would help. I do know that I was against the split. I do remember some pretty strong fields when we had the "Showcase Nationals" Damn tough racing. Yes the trip through Chicago is a pain, but it was a pain in 1986 so I will not use that as a excuse.

The Sprints are great but it takes as much time as a double national. I miss the running against the people in Cen-Div. We do not go there. they do not come here.

TIC idea... How about we handicap points awarded from the region you came. You know, non cash appearance money?????

[Purple Frog]

I witnessed some of the "negotiations" that go on in the machinery of SEDIV at the recent annual meeting. They did work it out. One thing to remember about the SEDIV, it's a long haul from Homestead to VIR (N to S), and Barber to Charlotte (E to W). So because of the geographic distances between all the tracks and the 11+ month season, it is a bit easier in SEDIV.

OBTW, the guys that have to haul from Ft. Lauderdale to Road Atlanta, might have a hard time seeing how getting through Chicago is a deal breaker for merging CENDIV.

Climate is the problem up there. But if this global warming continues, you will have a longer season to spread those races out. And, RRR, Daytona, PBIR, and Homestead will require snorkle gear.

[iamuwere]

Phil, I am very sorry to have to do this, but I have to AGREE with you.

I wish re-combination would happen, but I think the disputes and stubbornness that caused the split won't just go away. So we will probably have to live with the GL and Central Divisions the way they are now.

It is disappointing, but considering the general US political dysfunction, why should this be different, and why should we be surprised?

This is where I think the whole SCCA club apparatus falls apart. The very club and volunteer nature of things. There are too many people in "power" over useless things that have really, really soured my opinion on things. Arbitrary and random unkind actions (although they have never been against me to hold a grudge). Too many kings of mini fiefdoms.

I wish the SCCA would make all the schedules from the home office. Have a set plan of how many races should be in x locations and divisions. Have regional coordinators. Have a customer service program with intent to run things like a proper business. Yes, it is a club. No, I don't think it works best that way. There needs to be a proper directive top down with real intent to provide a good customer (me) experience from entry to packing up to go home. Having raced outside the SCCA system now, I really like it better.

Maybe it is the anti-GenX in me (though I have firmly fall into the ages of a proper GenXer), but I like a properly led corporate structure with a set game plan.

Jim

(no offense several of the SCCA volunteers that I have really enjoyed over the years----some people are fantastic, a few not so much...)

[Phil Creighton]

Jim
Unfortunately many dates are difficult to get at tracks with active programs - here in the SE we are often working 2 years ahead to get dates between the big money makers for the tracks and other activities that they have. Try to co-ordinate outside the divisions is close to impossible. How do you deal with issues like our SE double on July 4th declining as many went to the Sprints instead as a Runoffs tune up. Its not always a direct clash or distance that affects it. The Majors program throws it another curve - hopefully positive.
Love to try but..............

Phil

[Hardingfv32]

Phil is absolutely right.

1) If National assumed scheduling responsibilities they would also have to assume financial responsibilities.

2) I am willing to bet over 90% of Club Racing entrants never leave their division to race. If that is the case, then the current system is completely appropriate.

Brian

[Matt King]

2) I am willing to bet over 90% of Club Racing entrants never leave their division to race. If that is the case, then the current system is completely appropriate.

Brian

I think you are way off in your estimate. Take a look at the 2011 Cendiv National points and the number of racers who earned out of division points. I didn't do the math, but it's obviously way higher than 10 percent. At a glance it looks closer to 50 percent.

http://cendiv-scca.org/03racing/02po...nal%202011.pdf

[TimW]

2) I am willing to bet over 90% of Club Racing entrants never leave their division to race. If that is the case, then the current system is completely appropriate.

Typical west coast myopia. The divisions are much closer together outside of SoPac/NorPac and cross division participation is quite common. But go ahead, pull 90% out of nowhere.

Tim

[Hardingfv32]

My statement was NOT restricted to Nationals. I know many NE competitors the don't even change tracks. I stand by my statement.

Brian

[Matt King]

My statement was NOT restricted to Nationals. I know many NE competitors the don't even change tracks. I stand by my statement.

Brian

That's fine, but you made a SWAG about the nation as a whole in a thread about Cendiv and GL, where the facts prove your estimate is wildly wrong.

[TimW]

My statement was NOT restricted to Nationals. I know many NE competitors the don't even change tracks. I stand by my statement.

Brian

And thus even more irrelevant your point is since regional championships are inherently within one division (NARRC, SARRC, Tro Area 5, etc).

Inter division racing is only motivated by the 3 out of division points opportunities allowed in National racing. And that is where this discussion applies.

[Tony Sleath]

Inter division racing is only motivated by the 3 out of division points opportunities allowed in National racing. And that is where this discussion applies.

I disagree with respect to the GL and Cen-Div. When the schedules come out I pick the races at the tracks I like best and which races I think will have the best competition. For some years in the GL Division I only did the minimum number of races to meet the Runoffs qualifications. One year I went to IRP on Sunday only and started at the back of the race and drove around in order to get a finish. There was no one else in my class at that race weekend.

From Detroit its about 8 hours to Road America and 5 hours to Nelson Ledges. Autobahn and Blackhawk (both in Cen-Div) are even closer than Road America so it's really about the competition for me.

[TimW]

I disagree with respect to the GL and Cen-Div. When the schedules come out I pick the races at the tracks I like best and which races I think will have the best competition. For some years in the GL Division I only did the minimum number of races to meet the Runoffs qualifications. One year I went to IRP on Sunday only and started at the back of the race and drove around in order to get a finish. There was no one else in my class at that race weekend.

From Detroit its about 8 hours to Road America and 5 hours to Nelson Ledges. Autobahn and Blackhawk (both in Cen-Div) are even closer than Road America so it's really about the competition for me.

Fair enough...I was more pointing out that Regional racers have no championship motivation to go out of division. I too went to Mid-O, the Glen etc out of CenDiv as I wanted to race on those tracks and drove past Autobahn to do so...going to good tracks & competition where there is at least some return (national points) for doing so is what is driving the inter division racing that is common east of the Mississippi versus the typical regional driver ever towing 12 hours, except perhaps for the ARRC.

[mmi16]

My statement was NOT restricted to Nationals. I know many NE competitors the don't even change tracks. I stand by my statement.

Brian

In the SE Div in 2011 - 367 drivers competed in Nationals

134 Drivers competed in at least 268 races out of Division (Division points print out hides OD races beyond 4)

Over 36% of the drivers competed out of division in at least 1 race with the average being 2 races.

[Retired Driver]

Re-unification isn’t something that will happen over night if at all. The one thing that I miss is seeing some of the people from the other side of the divisional border at races I attend. This is probably true of the racers and workers alike where their divisional schedule comes first. In the mean time maybe there is something simpler that could be done to get things going.

What about a Double National at Gingerman where each division would hold one of the two races.

Both divisions would need to work together to establish and agree on this single date well in advance. They would also need to appoint a couple of Chair People that would work together to make things happen for this event.

I don’t know how this would get started but I am sure that somebody that reads this will know how and make suggestion.

If this works maybe it could be expanded to say Blackhawk and Mid-Ohio if national would approve crossing borders.

[Matt King]

I got this email yesterday through the Milwaukee region SCCA list:

"All - Bob has asked me to thank you for your replies. He feels that there
is sufficient adverse feeling that he does not support reuinification at
this time."

This was supposedly in response to a recent note on the regional website asking for member input on the topic prior to a BoD meeting.

[John LaRue]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Albert Einstein

[R. Pare]

Insanity?

In the Club???

Shirley you jest......

[Bill Bonow]

Right there with you Richard, I thought John was quoting the new SCCA tag line:

SCCA: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Good thing he attached that Albert Einstein link to keep us straight

[Offcamber1]

Shirley you jest......

My name isn't Shirley.

[R. Pare]

I wondered how it would take for someone to recognize that quote!!

Must be another old fart...........

[Matt King]

My name isn't Shirley.

Don't call me Shirley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA