Mark writes:
> Wow! What a cheap shot!
Maybe I should remind you of several of your own shots? Oh, right,
those were humour...
Yes, I was cranky from work when I wrote, but have you considered
the points I reacted to or do you still consider it "stirring up a bee's nest"
and could care less?
> Clearly most people in this Region would rather run in
> something other than the classes given in the SCCA rule book.
Okay, then your region can do something about it. And I think Scott
has your answer with their being too many classes available to
your region... get your region to cut down on the available classes!
> How dare you be so arrogant as to suggest that we just sit on our
> hands down here and bitch!
Did I say your region? No. I've only picked on you who seemed
to do the most of it.
> You may still call me what you may, but I think you owe the AZ Region
> members on Team.Net an apology for such demeaning statements!
Please point out what statements I made about AZ Region!
> Hello? Try substituting the word "ANY" for "YOUR" in my statement.
I'm supposed to be a mind reader? You respond to my email and you
used the word YOUR. I'll make a note that you're not really talking to
me in the above statements about cheap shots :-)
> And I am correct that if ANY region does not offer anything but the
> SCCA classes they WILL have a problem offering any other choice
> to single-car entries.
So if a region offers more classes they will have fewer single car
classes? Scott's math doesn't bear it out. Oh, another example of
"that's not what you meant". Maybe what you really, really meant
to write was "Regions that do not consolidate the SCCA classes
in ways that will enhance competition and growth will have a
problem with single-car entries." Nah, that would be putting words
in your mouth, particularly if I didn't guess correctly :-)
> I guess you have no sense of humor, either....?
I've got a good sense of humour, but your writing isn't terribly clear!
Okay, let's get back to the topic and you can tell me your thoughts:
Employ bumping (either via the Appendix or your own method) as a
way to remove single car classes for year-end points and here are
the problems I foresee:
a) If you allow entrants to self-bump, then how do you know when
they're running in a class that they intend to stay in for the season
and when they're just doing it for fun?
b) How do you assign points when entrants are bumped at one event
and not at another?
c) What happens to points for a self-bumped entrant when they drop
back to their regular class because competitors have magically
appeared halfway through the season?
d) What are you going to do for the higher P & M crowd where
bumping is likely to make a class before reaching the highest levels?
Use the Pro Solo method for those categories instead?
Adding classes for regional tastes works great for tailoring a program
to bulk up the membership, but has it's own problems:
a) Better ensure one is increasing participation rather than taking
away from established programs.
b) Adding classes dilutes competitors unless you get an increase
in participate or remove classes that aren't working.
George "I used to have a sense of humour, but then I bought a Fiat" Emery
gemery@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/gemery
|