Mode:  

| Register
February 08, 2012Region Exec's Blog Search

 

The Regional Executive's Blog


 

 

Location: BlogsThe Regional Excutive Blog   
Posted by: Regional ExecutiveFriday, February 05, 2010

 

 

The SCCA’s National Board of Directors has a National problem.  I mean that both in nomenclature and in scale.  National-level Club Racing is alive (National Racing), but it’s not well, and this is across all of the Divisions in the country. 

 

Disclaimer
I’m going to over-simplify what’s going on here because there are far too many details and because frankly, I don’t know them all.  And, for those of you who don’t know, there is Regional Racing, like our renown Mid-Atlantic Road Racing Series (MARRS) and there is National Racing, races that require the driver to have a National competitor’s license and qualify drivers for the Runoffs (Club Racing’s National Championship), among other things.  Ok, back to our regularly scheduled blog.

 

National Issues
I learned at the National Convention that the SCCA National Office’s primary income comes from Membership Dues and, you guessed it, the Runoffs.  Looking at that fact purely from a financial perspective, the reduction of the number of races needed to qualify for the Runoffs (at least 2 in-division with a minimum of 4 total) makes sense…it likely means more drivers will enter the Runoffs, and thus more income for SCCA National.

 

This business model presents another problem: quality (of racing) vs. quantity (of racers) at the Runoffs.  Some people in the SCCA have visions of the Runoffs coming back to major prominence, with drivers from across the world flying in their cars to participate.  Others have visions of turning away drivers at the Runoffs.  Which does the National BoD want to see happen?

 

If the National BoD wants to embrace the “quality” result, then there will need to be a significant change in the National Office’s overall business model.  The assumption here is that car counts will drop significantly, but the competition will be awesome.

 

If the National BoD wants to embrace the “quantity” result, the National Office will be financially stable, but it potentially dilutes the quality of the competition.  Is that the message the SCCA wants to send to not only its own membership but also to other racing sanctioning bodies?

 

The National BoD has to make up its mind on what its goal is before it can entertain any solutions to the National Racing problem.  This is no easy task, and I don’t envy the National BoD’s position one bit.  They have a fiduciary responsibility to the club, but they also have to be cognizant that they don’t screw over the Regions in whatever decision they make since it is the Regions that are the lifeblood of this club/organization.  Without the Regions, the National Office and the National Board of Directors have nothing to work for, and they know it.

 

Regional Issues
As the saying goes, the $#!+ always flows downstream, and this situation is no exception.  Some quick numbers:

  • The NorthEast Division (NEDiv) held 9 National races in 2009, with Pocono traditionally holding a double. 
  • Of the 450 NEDiv drivers who attended National events in-division, only 75 attended the Runoffs. 
  • At the impromptu NEDiv meeting at the National Convention, an informal poll was taken of how many National events were financially positive/negative.  The split was down the middle, 50% financially positive, 50% financially negative. 

 

So clearly, the Runoffs are not the motivator for National racers in the NEDiv to participate in National Racing, and the number of National races needed to qualify (both in-division and overall – VIR Double anyone?) for the Runoffs is not helping matters on a National or Divisional/Regional level.


Based on the responses I read from Tom Campbell’s Open Letter to National Drivers, the National racers really just want a racing experience that is cheap, fast and easy for them.  Ok, but now you have to consider the Cheap-Fast-Easy triangle; you can only pick 2.  It can be cheap and fast, but it may not be easy.  It can be cheap and easy, but it won't be fast.  It can be fast and easy but it won't be cheap.  If one party gets all three, then the other party loses big. 

 

For example, a double National (fast and cheap)at the racer’s home track (easy) is the racer not having to pick 2 but getting all 3.  What incentive does the racer have to go elsewhere?  Therefore, the other Regions hosting National races lose big.

 

This issue isn’t really what the National Drivers want; it’s clear what they want!  The issue is figuring out how to make hosting National races profitable for Regions until the National BoD makes a change to the National Racing program.

 

Therefore, the Division needs to do something for the 2011 season, and the only way that the Division will overcome its collective inertia is to allow the issue to remain a massive pain point (i.e. No, we’re NOT changing the schedule so that certain Regions can have a double National in 2010).  Then, the NEDiv Regions need to stop being selfish narcissists and realize that strength, and frankly, financial profit, comes in numbers, not by rabidly protecting one’s little fiefdom.

 

Take your blinders off, NEDiv Regions.  It’s time to take the Red Pill and free yourselves.

Permalink | Trackback

Comments (11)  
Re: National Racing  By Lauren Robison on Saturday, February 13, 2010
I'm kind of astounded there are no comments here considering how hot a topic this has been offline.... We could use some constructive suggestions by those in the know and by those who this affects.

Re: National Racing  By MEATHEAD Racing on Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I agree with E. I think SCCA National has an identity problem. They compete with themselves for market share. The SCCA needs to do away with regional/national racing and just have racing. Institute a super sweep style points system and the strong will survive. Popular events will become more popular and those events in financial trouble will go away. The SCCA needs to away with divisions. They are nothing more than geographical boundaries anyway. Each Region needs to operate like a franchise and run a good business.

Re: National Racing  By nismoman on Wednesday, February 17, 2010
I disagree 100 percent.SCCA has a step program,I started in autocross and moved to regional racing then nationals.SCCA is not a business its a club.NASA is a business and Chris does a fine job running his franchise but we are a club.We dont have a King,we have a group of people that put on races for enjoyment.The biggest problem with National racing is the economy.It is an embarrassment that we dont have a National race this year.It would be shame if SCCA turned into another NASA with nothing but spec classes. Brian Downey

Re: National Racing  By MEATHEAD Racing on Sunday, February 21, 2010
It is a club, WITH A HUGE OVERHEAD. With liability insurance,track rental, the cost of an office and staff, each event needs to be looked at for its ROI. No longer is it any where near cost effective to subsidize races that run at a loss. National racing is the unfortunate looser. National racing is loosing all over the country, the only regions that even come close to breaking even with National racing are regions with larger tracks that can run fewer run groups and make it a regional/national weekend. I run national races and will be at the runoffs again this year, but I am glad the DC region is not running a national this year.

Re: National Racing  By nismoman on Sunday, February 21, 2010
If everything comes down to the dollar are we going to scrap the drivers school?We have more workers signed up than drivers.

Re: National Racing  By MEATHEAD Racing on Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Summit Point I think helps underwrite the some portion of the track rental. We all (both regional and national drivers) benefit from new blood. We cannot say that about hosting nationals or enduro;s.

Re: National Racing  By nismoman on Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Does Summit underwrite a portion of the school?It would be useful to know if that is a fact or not.The DC region and SCCA Does benefit from the school but WE HAVE A HUGE OVERHEAD and a loss is a loss in a good business.Mike (if this you)you should not be glad that DC is not hosting the National,you should be upset nothing was done to try and save it.If the National was put on life support and given a chance with some new ideas and then failed well we tried.Instead it was put to sleep like a dog whose owner was tired of buying dog food.I hope the national and a enduro races come back in the near future.Best of luck to you and Meathead racing this year,Brian

Re: National Racing  By verve1994 on Monday, March 01, 2010
The track rental fee for the drivers school is less than for a regional race. You can call that underwriting or you can call it a discount or you can just call it the fee Summit Point makes us pay for the school.

Re: National Racing  By MEATHEAD Racing on Monday, March 08, 2010
The WDCR NATIONAL HAS BEEN ON LIFE SUPPORT for a few years. Yes some of the decline was economic related and some due to forces of nature beyond our control.

I don't have access to the WDCR accounting I don't know the answers to some of those questions. Because of the lack of double nationals in the NEDIv I am now also a member of the SEdiv and will do the double at VIR.

Re: National Racing  By SOseth on Thursday, March 11, 2010
In reflective times I am astonished at how things have changed within SCCA in my 30 years of membership. I have raced in and out of the DC Region strictly in formula cars since 1979. When I began racing National racing was the pinnacle of racing within the amateur division of SCCA. As regional racers we relished the idea of racing against the National guys when they came to Summit Point. At that point in time there were 2 Nationals a year at Summit Point and they were well attended. It was important because I believed then and now that our development as drivers is accelerated as we challenge ourselves against those with more experience and yes even with better equipment.

Topeka has done all regions a disservice buy reducing the requirements to qualify for the Runoffs. They have gutted the Divisional National racing program in return for a perceived increase in attendance at the Runoffs. From my perspective they completely misunderstand the reason that I go National racing. I wish to go to races at different venues that attract other good (fast??) competitors in my class. The last thing I want is to come to a race and be the only one competing in my class. It's not worth the money and time it cost to get ready for a race weekend. I race to compete, everything else to me is secondary. (perhaps my view is warped, but I don't think I the only one who thinks this way.

The cancellation of the National at Summit is sad beyond words but probably a sound decision. It has not been viewed favorably by NE competitors for many years due to the schedule. Weather was always a factor and so the racers voted with their feet and didn't attend. Fewer and fewer racers are choosing to race Nationals over the last 2 decades. I think Topeka and the Divisional entities need to look at this issue in a more global fashion and compel the regions to think a cohesive unit. In the end I think it's more important to have fewer races that are well attended than more races that no one goes to.

Steve Oseth

Re: National Racing  By JJJanoska on Wednesday, March 17, 2010
1. Summit Point does not underwrite the rental of the school. The rent is less expensive than a Regional/National for two simple reasons
1A. The school(s) is (were) held outside the prime rental period. Renting the track in Mid-March is less expensive than May.
1B. The school gives less wear/tear on the facility.

2. The idea that the National was on life support has yet to be established. It's clear that the National, for two years, did not cover the sum of its own costs plus the Region overhead allocated to it. That does not, however, mean the National lost money. The overhead exists regardless of whether the National is held or not. If the National covered its own costs - i.e. what it cost to hold the event - then there was no financial reason to kill the event.


 

Blog Archives


 

 

Copyright 2007 by WDCR-SCCA   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use