well, I guess I'll now have to send my counter-letter to the SEB (dang, one
more letter to write). Should be no surprise, I have stated this in so many
words previously:
IMO a class should have to develop before being given championship status.
No offense to those who won their respective supplemental classes, but when
the class is new, and especially if the vehicle development is modification
heavy ($$$), it takes time for it mature to the championship level.
Championships should mean something more than just somebody finished first,
which is a given if at least one competitor attends (and I won't be swayed by
by the erroneous adies class argument). I see nothing wrong with requiring a
several year supplemental period to ensure competitor commitment and class
development, which IMO is imperative for championship status.
IMO, the STS class is showing it's worth, STX is coming along, SM2 definitely
needs more time.
Mark Sipe
Cc: Evo Digest
In a message dated 9/20/02 3:56:40 PM Central Daylight Time, rocky@tri.net
writes:
>
> I was looking at the results of the "supplemental classes" (STX, SM2, F125)
> and thought just how ridiculous this "supplemental" concept is. So I just
> sent the following letter to the SEB.
>
> --Rocky Entriken
>
>
> To the SEB:
>
> I would like to recommend the SEB end the practice of "supplemental
> classes"
> at the Solo II Nationals. It seems, in retrospect, to be a silly and
> non-productive practice that serves only to deny a few individuals the
> accord of a championship they won just as surely as anyone else who drove
> the same courses to the same end - many of them in classes smaller than the
> "supplementals."
>
> A practice such as this year, SM2 running as part of EM and STX running as
> part of SM, then promised they would break out to their own class if they
> exceeded a specified entry limit, is a far better solution. The class then
> has a chance to "make" itself. If it succeeds in doing so, as both SM2 and
> STX did -- and F125 had good numbers too, then it should be accorded the
> same status and awards as their parent classes. SM2 ended up bigger than
> its
> parent EM this year, but is demeaned as "not a real class" by being ignored
> in the list of champions in the Solo II rules and its winners refused the
> champion's jacket.
>
> How much trouble is it really to give a couple more jackets and a couple
> more lines of type in the book? The cost of the jackets is easily covered
> by
> the minimum size of a class entry that would warrant the award, and we
> already give the trophies.
>
> These people pay the same entry fee, come with the same commitment, do the
> same work duties, drive with the same intensity, and are as much a part of
> our event as A Modified or H Stock.
>
> If a class struggles, if it lasts only one year, so be it. But we gain
> nothing, and perhaps lose some veracity, by denying those "supplemental"
> winners the mantle of champion. None of the supplementals have yet failed
> in
> such a manner.
>
> Thus I would propose that the definition of "supplemental class" would now
> be "a class within a larger class." The one group that would currently fit
> that definition would be Formula SAE within A Modified. If any class ever
> is
> so included, and then makes numbers to warrant being broken out to its own
> class, it would then no longer be "supplemental" but would become a
> championship class in its own right.
>
> This may also be the good method of handling classes on the edge of
> viability (even ladies' classes). If, to take a now-unlikely example, H
> Stock was making poor numbers then it would be assimilated into G Stock for
> Nationals (and Tours? Divisionals?) but its cars would still retain their
> HS
> identity. And if the HS drivers raised a groundswell of support to produce
> the needed numbers at Nationals, then it would break out again. Similarly,
> you could establish a Ladies Class minimum of, say, 5 cars. Fewer, and the
> class runs with its open. I am not proposing this, just illustrating the
> possibility.
>
> I would also propose that those "supplementals" of the recent past -
> Formula
> 125, FM of 1995, STS of 1999-2000, and SM of 2000-2001, retroactively be
> recognized as championship classes by inclusion of their winners in the
> back
> of the Solo II Rules. It seems to demonstrate how silly this exclusion is
> when STS, supplemental just two years ago, was the fourth-largest class
> this
> year out of 32.
>
> Such recognition does not mean a class could not still be "on probation"
> and
> disappear in future years. It only means the efforts of those who drove in
> them would be recognized on an equal level with the efforts of everyone
> else. That is the real issue.
>
> Rocky Entriken
> #19814
> Salina Region
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|