autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Supplemental classes

To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Supplemental classes
From: "eric salem" <eric@mail.brown911.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:58:13 -0500
<<
We have far and away too many classes. To create new classes in the face of 
this means that the new classes MUST MUST MUST fulfill some powerfully 
lacking void in our coverage, and MUST MUST MUST have legs to stand on. 
>>

GUYS GUYS GUYS, how do you figure we have too many classes? In about six weeks 
everybody will be posting on this list about 'how to grow' the sport. At least 
that's what happens most decembers. I do aggree that the SMx & STx classes are 
the future, but to say we have too many classes I just don't get. Different 
classes are big in different parts of the country, FP in SWDiv, CP in MiDiv, 
those Lotus thingies in the SF area and on and on and on. 

If you want minimum participation levels counting only Natz isn't fair as just 
going to there from a coast would eat some folks entire annual budget. Same way 
with Tours, there aren't any close to MiDiv so that measure would under 
represent classes popular here.

So that leaves us applying one rule across the country which isn't nessasarily 
fair. 

an earlier poster had a point the rules about what define a viable class 
clearly aren't enforced fairly; How long has it been since AP or FP had 18 
competitors? If we are going to enforce rules about when we can make something 
a 'full' class we better enforce what we have about when a class looses that 
status also.

my 2 cents,
e

///  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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>