Chris Eckles' response to GH typifies the majority opinion, I believe.
Most autocrossers like their motorsports experience just the way it is.
"Let's keep it secret except for those of us who already know abou it"
seems to be the majority sentiment.
GH brings up some very valid points because putting Solo on TV WILL
change the sport forever. It could be positive if handled correctly, IMO,
but there aren't any guarantees. I suspect, some of us wouldn't like to
see ANY changes in autocrossing from the form we find ourselves in right
now.
Here's my vision for the positive aspects of TV exposure. Frankly, I
think we MUST push the sport to the forefront or die. Why? because
getting sites will get more and more difficult as time rolls on. We don't
play in our own yards. Many out there get to play on free sites, for now.
And some of us have to rent sites. To the average autocrosser they see no
problems, they're having a lot of fun, so everything seems cool. But the
average autocrosser is naive to think this scenario will continue
forever. Those of us who have had to work our butts off to get good sites
know this isn't an easy process. We also know the pressures these sites
are under. The free sites can go away in a blink. The rented sites can
cave to more lucrative rental offers. This is a competitive environment
that our amateur level isn't prepared to cope with in our current form.
The way I look at it is that autocrossing is the "Rodney Dangerfield of
Motorsports." We don't get any respect. In fact we don't even respect
ourselves, to hear the way we talk about our own sport. I hear that we're
boring to watch, that we aren't a good market for products and we believe
that no one would want to sponsor us. Nonsense.
Here's why I think TV exposure would help us. Massive exposure of our
sport would explode nationwide participation at the grassroots level
(just like it does for circle track and drag racing). More than likely,
autocrossing would become the largest participation motorsport in the
country. It would also enhance the possibllity of entrepreneurs seeing
the opportunity and developing dedicated sites for event use (and at the
same time they could develop other revenue streams such as testing, local
rentals during the week, etc). Notice I said nothing about clubs
developing their own sites. This is, frankly, unrealistic for any
volunteer club to pull off successfully, IMO. Too much room for neglect,
politics, etc.
Also, the huge influx of participants would awaken the commercial world
to our power as a market. And the reason we'd get a huge influx of
drivers is because autocrossing is the most economical and safe way to
participate in motorsports, seriously. Right now, though, very few car
enthusiasts know we exist. And many more that know a little about us have
no idea how, or where to go to get involved. With a national presence, I
envision many magazines catering to autocrosser's interests in addition
to the TV coverage.
One of the negative sides would be the effect on the "big dogs" in Solo
II today, if a professional TV series were developed. A truly
professional series on TV would likely attract totally different folks
than the heavy hitters, today. Money and exposure does funny things. The
old SCCA animosity between "club" competitors and "pro" competitors and
their formats could raise its ugly head, again. Frankly, I believe this
fear is what is really holding back Solo from getting on TV, today. Most
folk who like our sport the way it is have no interest in changing it.
They actively resist the change as a negative thing. I suggest the
majority of Solo II competitors even resist Pro Solo in its current form.
Also, consider the possibility that SCCA national MAY have little
interest in developing Solo II to that level. They have many other
projects with higher priorities, right now. Also, SCCA's origins are
firmly rooted in road racing and rally as the traditional venues that go
back to the founding days. This is where the current glamour of SCCA
resides even though road racers account for only 1/6 th as many
competitors as autocrossers. It appears to me that national SCCA (at the
top levels) sees Solo II as a feeder program for future road racers
(we've all heard road racers taunt us that they are "real" racers) and as
a pool for race workers more than as a viable professional level sport.
Solo II (autocrossing) has its roots, in the old days, from marque and
local sports car clubs evolving their slow, quirky gymkhanas into a more
serious (and fun) form of competition that became known as autocrossing.
In the 1960s the rules for autocrossing was a hodge-podge of local and
marque club rules that varied all over the place all across the country.
That's when some SCCA folks, such as John Kelly of North American Pylon,
appealed to the club to take over autocrossing to give it a national set
of rules. The national championships were started in the early 1970s and
the rest is history. Today, almost all independent sports car clubs use
SCCA rules as the basis for their local rules. However, the point is that
Solo II (autocross) doesn't have its roots in SCCA. But that was then,
this is now.
The problem of a member-driven club running the show is that SCCA
leadership has to answer to the dues paying members. So, anything new
that doesn't appeal to the majority gets a huge barrage of negativity
thrown at it before it gets out of the starting gate. The same applies to
PCA, NCCC, POC and BMWCCA, by the way, so they can't get smug, either.
Frankly, I believe the naysayers only see the negatives and take up a
whisper campaign to kill the initiative instead of embracing the
possibilities. In this case, it appears, club autocrossers are fearful
that their grassroots sport will get ruined by the exposure and the
resultant growth.
This attitude is a substantial reason why Sports Car/Road Racing isn't
anywhere near as popular in this country as it is throughout the world,
IMHO. SCCA had United States road racing under it's control in the 50s
and 60s. The same club vs. pro issue kept SCCA in turmoil for years in
the 60s during the formative stages of worldwide road racing. The club
racing proponents kept the USA years behind the world during that time,
trying to keep road racing "pure" in the amateur sphere. Frankly road
racing, here, has never caught up and now NASCAR and NHRA dominates
American motorsports.
And here we (autocrossing) sit, the third largest motorsports group in
the nation with no public presence and no public exposure other than what
people see driving by our events or what someone may read in Sports Car,
Grassroots Motorsports or North American Pylon. The internet has ushered
in the latest burst of growth which is interesting. But I believe we are
still a sleeping giant with a bright worldwide motorsports future that
the majority of its participants seem determined to keep small and at the
grassroots level, only.
Autocrossing has no worldwide appeal, yet. We are on the cusp of being
able to take it to that level but we lack a united leadership desire to
make the effort and spend the funds to make this happen. Hopefully,
someone, sometime will step forward with the vision to move autocrossing
to be the world class motorsport with the recognition it deserves.
Alternatively, we can just wait until europe or Japan figures it out and
beats us to the punch.
Flame away!!!!!!!!!!
Ben
Stirring the pot, again.
==========================================================
Subject: Promotion Efforts(was Solo on TV)
OK, my curiosity has finally gotten the best of me.....
To those who are certain that we can and should get Solo on TV, what
do you see as the benefits (direct or otherwise) from accomplishing
that goal? Benefits to the SCCA, to your local club, to yourself, to the
Solo community as a whole?
This topic continues to come up for discussion again and again, and no
one ever gets past the argument over initial costs and who might foot
the bill. What's our motivation for doing this? Has anyone thought far
enough ahead to consider what the unintended consequences of
large-scale public exposure to our sport *could* mean to its future, and
what that future might look like? Bob Tunnell and Rich Fletcher both
addressed this point briefly in their posts from a year or more ago, but
every discussion since has completely ignored their comments, IMO.
I have no intention of taking sides in the discussion, it simply puzzles
me that everyone advocating putting Solo on TV seems to assume that
nothing but good things would come out of it.
GH
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/autox
|