Another way to reduce turnout is to (continue to)
schedule against other events on the region.
Craig
--- Rob Weinstock <weinstro@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >you may lower attendance, but you will not lose
> many newbies. more of the
> >serious people will be inclined to drive to sac
> where you can get 10 runs
> >for less money. one reason i want to drive in SFR
> is because the high
> >level
> >of competition makes me improve faster.
> >i would prefer to have more events. i am willing
> to co-chair event(s) to
> >help make this happen.
> >
> >comments?
>
> I'm not suggesting that we increase barriers to
> entry for any particular
> class of competitor, in order to reduce the turnout.
> If a newbie is serious
> about autox, and is willing to stick it out, so be
> it.
>
> Raising the price will pose the same economic
> question to everyone: do I run
> here and pay, drive far and pay less, or not compete
> at all? You have a
> point in that a new competitor will not be aware of
> the price change, and
> therefore won't have that comparative frame of
> reference. Anyway, if the
> more serious competitors elect to compete in
> Sacramento, that's fine, too.
> Some will follow them, and some will be replaced by
> the dreaded "newbies".
> Note that consumers make the same decision in the
> Bay area every day with
> respect to housing and commuting.
>
> Increasing the number of autocrosses will have zero
> effect on attendance at
> any given autocross. Most people are more inclined
> to pay $25 a pop for 25
> events than $40 for 15 events. If someone has no
> intention of competing for
> the whole series, then the economic analysis is even
> simpler. Also, more
> events would make it more difficult for any given
> participant to win a
> trophy, because you would have to attend more events
> in the series to ensure
> your results.
>
> If the idea of higher cost really puts it over the
> top, we could consider an
> attendance based discount structure. i.e., attend 12
> or more of 14 events,
> get $X refunded; attend 10 or more of 14 events, get
> $Y refunded; attend
> less than 10 events, get nothing.
>
> Finally, I may be incorrect on this point, but I
> thought one of the
> constraints is site availability -- I assumed that
> we are basically running
> the max number of events that we can accomodate,
> subject to constraints of
> availability of both sites and organizers.
>
> We could also raise other barriers, too. Like clear
> numbering of cars, etc.
> Enforcing what's in the rule book would be fine.
> This would have to be
> over-communicated before it is applied, or there
> will be a hue and cry of
> unfairness.
>
> I like the idea of the automated timing and scoring,
> BTW. It does offer the
> potential for increasing the number of participants
> we can handle. However,
> I think we expose ourselves to becoming overly
> dependent on the technical
> equipment required to support it, training, etc. We
> should definitely buy a
> supported software product instead of writing our
> own, for example.
>
> IMHO.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
_________________________________________________________________________
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own
> public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
=====
Craig Boyle
95 Mazda Miata R BS 614
99 BMW 323i Sport GS ?
00 Ford Focus ZX3 HS 5
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
|