Here's a bombshell for you...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 20 2005, 02:38 AM
Maybe sending a messenger that many people perceive as the boy that cried wolf would make for a better reception.  Oh ya, placing the topic exclusively in the Sotheast section might have gotten you someplace too.

AB
Been on 3 National Committies, 1 local and a Regional BoD and still have yet to get any payola.  I must be doing someting wrong.  :blink:
[snapback]66029[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


AHA! It was Bucanner region! I knew it! Thank you very much Ms. Creighton. That pretty much confirms just about everything I was speculating on. Keep an eye on this Florida folks. It's real.

Andy, what have I cried wolf about that wasn't substantiated as real? I've asked a bunch of people that same question lately who made claims like yours and have yet to hear anything. :happy204:

The Florida Road Racing Championship....hmmm. Sounds pretty good to me. SARRC drivers from outside of Florida would be begging to get in! :023: Come see the huge number of cars that show up next weekend at Sebring! :happy204: Lat race there I had 108 cars in my race group. Eat your hearts out Buccaneer region! :D

I know IT doesn't care about Nationals but SC, GA and AL folks, come on down and watch three National races with 350-500 cars this year. I know you don't get to see that up north and it's a hoot! :happy204:


GO FLORIDA! :happy204:
 
I was in the meeting. I heard the proposal made by members of the Buccaneer Region. It was supported by members of the Alabama Region and others. The Director of Area 12 tabled the discussion and set a time of Friday night of the Jekyll meeting weekend in January to come to a determination about the proposal. The gathering is limited to the REs and the two Directors of SEDiv.

The proposal was to limit the number of races that a region could put on to:
1 National
2 regionals
1 driver’s school
Limit the number of regions that can put on a race to those regions who currently have a date on the SEDiv schedule.
Click to expand...

Why would this proposal have any traction at all? If all of the current regions would be forced to seriously reduce their schedule, how is it this could even reach the point of serious discussion. It should have been punted down the hall months ago.

This is folly. Is is puzzling beyond reason to expect every region to give up races and then not add any new regions that don't already have a calender date on the SEDiv schedule? Does that make any sense to anyone?

CFR's schedule would lose:

January or May National
February, June and November regionals

It would look like this:

Jan. - nada (Nat'l gone)
Feb. - nada (Regional/SARRC gone)
March - nada
April - Driver's school
May - Nat'l/ECR, Daytona
June - nada (Regional gone)
July - nada (Driver's school gone)
Aug. - Double SARRC, Daytona
Sept. - SARRC/ECR, Sebring (Late Sept regional @ Daytona gone)
Oct. - Regional (Season ending points race), Sebring
Nov. - Regional w/ SARRC '06
Dec. - nada

In a word - YAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Mr. Balderson will be hearing from me very soon. I don't see this as going anywhere, it is way beyond any reason. I might support each region surrendering one date to aid an attempt to bring smaller regions into the Club Racing program, but to handcuff all of the regions like this serves no purpose. According to Toni's description, it doesn't serve the needs of any regions that do not yet have a race date on the calender, it cuts dangerously in to the revenue stream that most regions rely on to fund other club activities, and it virtually kills any idea of a legitimate Regional championship. I mean, who would want to be called the champion of a schedule that looks like the one above?

I'm sorry, this is just out there like Pluto. I can't believe it will ever get off the ground.
 
Chris,

I agree with you 100% but I've seen some strange policies get pushed through that seemed to make little or no sense and some even more outrageous ones dicussed and tabled. I recently heard about a proposal to get any and all team members on pit lane in firesuits! :rolleyes: I'm still pushing for shorts! :023:

And there IS a region, that benefits or at least a track that stands to IMO. It's a simple, but misguided, business model. Buccaneer region happens to own that track and under the proposal they keep all their races because those at Roebling Road that exceed the policy limit are currently hosted by SEDIV or other regions and do not count towards Buccaneer's count. Furthermore they have two additional regions in the "elite eight" that are under the limit on races, both of which currently run their races at Roebling, South Carolina and Alabama. Getting any clearer? Here's the dig and what I see as the business model being contemplated.

There are two problems for Roebling and perhaps less so for Atlanta. First is simple competition. Their races are constantly competing for entrants with FL on opposing weekends or what I call "decision races" where two locations are within a week or two and you have to choose (see example below). Roebling tends to lose out when up against A Sebring or Daytona. The second problem is workers. I think their problem is far worse than ours and when you have to start closing down the track, no money comes in.

Just to illustrate, South Carolina Region had to cancel its SARRC race this weekend at guess where? Roebling Road. And I'm sure they probably blame Florida for that and lose a bunch of money. They claimed not enough workers but I doubt there was a whole lot of interest from workers or drivers for a race in Savannah in late November with a HUGE SARRC weekend at Sebring the following week.

Now if you cut back the FL races you accomplish two goals. One you eliminate the competition. If we have no choice, worker or driver, we have to go to Roebling and Atlanta OR forget about SARRC or Nationals and just run FL races. Assuming many will give in (bad assumption and big mistake I think) Roebling will increase their car counts and workers from FL. Not only that but with all the regions in the "elite eight" that already use Roebling and are under the count, you can add even more dates without competition. Theoretically. you could end up with 16 races between two tracks, Roebling and Atlanta, divied up between Atlanta, Buccaneer, SC and AL regions all under the proposed race limits, while FL ends up with six races at four tracks. What was the term I was given... "A more even distribution of racing." That doesn't sound very even to me. :blink: My thought is that Roebling ends up with 10 or 11 of those and Atlanta remains static with no loss or gain from current other than shedding the June National they don't want anyway. The bottom line is a race at Roebling is a race for the Buccaneer region.

This is not a Black Helicopter deal Chris. It's just plain numbers and business and an attempt to redistribute market share and limit competition both in terms of customers, market share and workers at the expense of FL customers and workers. It should be thrown out and not spoken of again but that's not happening. This is what happens when a region owns a track and why it should never happen. People that can't make it profitable are stuck with a noon-performing asset and with inferior marketing skills are trying to make it perform. So and they end up with a lame brained plan like this one. We just need to stay on top of it and make sure it doesn't happen. Unfortunately I think we would get outvoted. :angry: Looks like it's already 4-2 and I don't think we get much sympathy or votes going any farther North. :(


GO FLORIDA! :happy204:
 
Ben Racin... See you're stalking again. At least your sophmoric attempt at humor is better than your threatening e-mails. You must really be infatuated with me. Everywhere I go you show up as an anonymous new member with some lame post having nothing to do with anything but your jealousy that while I'm racing you sit at home dreaming about it. Do you sit around all day waiting for me to come on-line? That's creepy dude. :blink:

Keep delivering those pizzas and save your money! :023: I'll rent you a car when you're ready for the real thing. I need to go finish working on the cars for Sebring so I'll leave you to your Swanson Hungry-Man and "Who's the Boss" marathon. You really should find something more constructive to do. Try taking those old appliances out on the front lawn to the junkyard. :D Have a nice day. :D


GO FLORIDA! :happy204:
 
I don't usually post on this forum because I don't drive a IT car. I drive a FP Miata. I am a SEDIV driver. I have National license, but race only Regional races. I started racing in South Carolina, but now I live in Florida. I've done some research and given this proposal a lot of thought. I'd like to apologize in advance for the length of this post. I should not also note that I did not believe Matt at first, but Toni Creighton's post on this and the Prod forums convinced me. The following is a copy of my post on the Prod Forum.

1. Purpose of the Proposal
It appears that the purpose of the proposal is to solve a scheduling problem within the SEDIV and the constant workers problem. This would resolve these problems, however, the costs associated with this proposal seems excessive. The scheduling problem could be relieved to some extent by reducing the 450 mile restriction to 300. With the cost of gas, the 450 mile restriction does need to be reviewed. Adding races will make the workers problem worse. Paying them, giving them free lodging and meals, paying for their memberships, and other enticements may help with this continuing problem. Every volunteer-based organization has this problem. I have heard suggestions that every driver provide a worker. I don't know how well this will work, but this will relieve some of the worker's problem. But details on how this would work is not clear, especially since many drivers do not have crews or other assistance.

2. Effect on Race Schedule

I added up the races scheduled for 2006 in SEDIV. There are 10 Nationals, 66 Regionals and 8 driver's schools for a total of 84 events. As you can tell, most of the races are on double or triple weekends. The regions in order of most to least events (races plus driver's schools) are Central Florida (17), Atlanta (17), Florida (16), Central Carolina (12), North Carolina (9), Buccanneer (6), SEDIV (3), South Carolina (2), and Alabama (2).

With this proposal and assuming all the "racing" regions use all of their weekends, the total events will be 32 events. Adding in the 3 SEDIV events (2 Nationals and 1 Regional), the total is 35. This is less than half of the current number of races. The breakdown will be 10 Nationals, 17 Regionals and 8 schools.

3. Scheduling

According to the SARRC rules, no races may be held on the same or consecutive my be held within 450 miles of each other. This rule was apparently passed in 1/04. I could not find any other scheduling rule.

All the tracks, except for maybe Homestead, are within 450 miles of Roebling. This includes the Nashville track, which I am assuming the Tennessee Region will want to get certified for SCCA races. If Tennessee starts to hold races, the numbers of events goes to 11 Nationals, 19 Regionals and 9 schools, assuming they can run 1 National, 2 Regionals and 1 Drivers School in their first year as a racing Region.

4. Discussion

The hardest hit will be the drivers who race only Regionals. I don't know what the IT, SPU, or SPO drivers will do. Some may convert their cars to Prod, but I'm afraid that we will lose many of them to NASA.

The new drivers will lose, too. They, except for the rent-a-racers, would have just spent many thousands on their cars, driver's gear, trailer, etc. I don't know if many will want spend that kind of money and not enjoy their investments. That is, if you can call a race car an investment. Again, afraid that we will lose many of them to NASA.

If this proposal passes, then, you can expect more Regional-level drivers at the Nationals. These drivers will be trying to keep their license while minmizing their travel expenses. I know I would strongly consider it, even though I hate being a rolling chicane. :bash_1_:

The most active racing Regioins will lose, too. Central Florida, Atlanta, Florida, Central Carolina, and North Carolina will lose most of their races. Central Florida and Florida may decide to form a separate Division, if this proposal is approved. I'm afraid it would be the South Atlantic Division. It's sprint race championship would probably be the SARRC as SARRC is the initials for the South Atlantic Road Race Championship.

5. Conclusions
I don't think the proposal to limit the number of races is a good solution for the scheduling and worker problems because of the potential costs to the Division. I would like to encourage all SEDIV racers to contact their RE's and their fellow racers to make sure this proposal is not inacted.

Perry Young
FP Miata
Central Florida Region
 
And you know what? There are good proposals and bad proposals in all aspects of life and business, including SCCA. The problem I have is that every one Matt brings to the table has overtones of someone trying to railroad someone else - and it is always the SCCA volunteers who are getting accused. This guy had a secret meeting and that guy won't show me his expense reports, blah, blah, blah.

Any one of us who doesn't own a black helicopter could have written this 'issue' up in such a way that was informative, asked for reaction and then action - without making it seem like the drivers were getting screwed by a closed-door, double-secret-probationary group who had something personal to gain.

AB
 
Andy,

Name one issue that wasn't real. Third time I've asked and you still have no answer. "Matt always does this he always says that, he always...." About what? Pick a topic. If you're gong to throw out accusations, back them up like I do.

Just like this issue. Everyone says it's not real and then...aha. It is. Just like every other one. This is about Roebling Road paying their bills. Plain and simple. No black helicopters, no scandal. Just an underhanded attempt to get business from a region that does not have the talent to cultivate their own market and has absolutley no business owning a race track.
 
Andy,

You're right. There are good and bad proposals everyday and everywehere. We need to try to find and implement the good ones and prevent the bad ones from being implemented. I don't see black helicopters on this proposal. I see some people who were trying to come up with a solution to some problems. They should be commended for their efforts. However, this solution is not a good one. This is especially true for your fellow IT drivers.

I have never met Matt. I only know him through his posts. I would suspect the same can be said for you. And like you, I take "out of the blue", "the sky is falling" posts from Matt with a grain of salt. I think you can read that in my posts on the Prod forum concerning this proposal.

I have met Toni Creighton on a few occasions. My impression of her is that she is a straightshooter and does not cry wolf. She, not Matt, convinced me that the proposals were for real. My own research and analysis convinced me that the proposal was not a good one and should be opposed.

Perry Young
FP Miata
 
It's not about issues being 'real' Matt. It's about the way you portray them. How about the whole Runoffs expense report thing...did you really want to know what was on them (why I have no idea) or did you just want to shake a tree and see what fell out? Everyone is guilty before proven innocent in your eyes. It ain't the way to 'work' within a volunteer environment. I am all for holding people accountable, but your methods are rediculous.

I am done with this thread. The opinions of others here and on every other BB speak for themselves.

AB
 
Andy, the club still refuses to release that information and there's still a lot of money unaccounted for. It's a very real issue. They claim it's confidential and members of the club have no right to be informed. You make the call. I'd sure like to know where all that money goes but we're never going to know because you all are happy to let them use it however the want without accountability.

By the way, I pick my issues carefully. I get so many leaks and leads from people wanting me to fire out for their cause while they hide behind anonymity. Most of them are self serving interests that want me to be the bad boy to get something they want done. More often than not it's unsubstantiated and you never hear about it from me.

No, I make sure they're guilty or doing something bad before I take on an issue. That way I can be confident I'm fighting for a just cause. I researched this topic too. Confirmed it through multiple sources before I said a word. Got lied to by a couple and realized there was more going on than met the eye.
 
I have read these posts and my head is spinning around much like the young lady in the Exorsist. As the RE of the Fl. Region I feel compelled to speak out and state what I believe is true. I have already had a lengthy telephone conversation with Matt.... he is a member of the Fl.Region.... and I'm sure he won't find anything new and different in this post. First of all, there was NO Secret Meeting!! During the course of the normal mid-year meeting a request was made to discuss voluntary reductions in the number of races being held by the present racing regions.The difficulty in staffing these events per the GCR is becoming more and more of an issue. Simply stated, we are running out of volunteers for the various specialties. Neither my Race Director nor myself were opposed to discussion dealing with a scaling down of the number of events. The FL. Region is not desireous of racing in south Fl. during Jul-Aug-Sept because of the high temperatures and the uncertain weather conditions......hurricanes. We have structured our sched, so that we combine SARRCS with ECR's or ECR's with drivers schools etc. Bottom line is that we have a full complement of SARRC races (4) and a complete number of ECR's (3) ....ECR's are not one per track but two per region and up to three if available, total not to exceed 15 with one reserved for AL Region. The proviso is also for a double ECR, location to be determined, upon need. I'm not sure what constitutes need. Fl. Region will have a full sched of events: (1) National---at HST, (4) SARRC'S , a Drivers Shool and (3) ECR's. This is what we had this year and what is on tap for next year. Unfortunately we have already lost one SARRC for 2006 due to the recent visit by Fred Flintstone's wife. We will obviously attempt to arrive at a substitute replacement date. WE want to give the drivers a full sched of series events, but we are not interested in racing each and every month. Would I support a one National, one drivers school, two regional total card per region? Not only no, but HELL NO!! WE are trying to offer the drivers the most bang for their buck, same number of quality series events without having to make as many trips to the track. Gosh, you might even find out that you enjoy another hobby as well.

As far as drivers not being aware of what transpired at mid-year in ATL there was no cloak of secrecy thrown over anything in this Region. This was noted at our BOD meeting....you got to submit a report if you want to get your expense money..... Our BOD meetings are open to any member of the Region but very few ever attend. The same applies to our monthly General membership meetings. We do not don on dark robes, and meet on a misty Scottish moor late at night and offer up incantations in a strange tongue to keep our actions steeped in secrecy. If anyone calls their call is taken or returned. E-mails are answered or a phone call placed to whoever has a question. Anything else is not acceptable.

The motion was tabled to be continued at the Jekyll meeting in Jan. that was really the only sensible approach. That would enable people to get input from those in the region.....not only the drivers.....who could look at the matter and be prepared to offer intelligent thoughts and suggestions, through their RE when the time arrives. A snap knee-jerk decision in Jul. was not the answer. Talk with your RE and let him or her know your feelings.

So there you have one RE's thoughts and opinions on the subject. No secrecy, no witchcraft, no hidden agenda. Time to go, there is a black helicopter in the back yard offering me a lift to a Mexican Restaurant so I can make it accross the border.

John Anderson
Reg Exec
Fl.Region-SCCA
 
He said "Hell no!"

Keep trying Alabama. We're not levaing the opportunity open for Roebling to get 11 of the top races! We'll be staying in Florida. You guys can keep cancelling races.


GO FLORIDA! :happy204:
 
What John said. John I don't even think you can say the proposed idea was "tabled". There was never a motion made to even consider the idea. It was just discussed. For it to be "tabled" there would have been a motion on it, discussion, and then it would be voted up, down, or tabled. I don't remember such a motion nor do I think the minutes of the mid-year meeting will reflect such a motion being made.

As to the claim by Matt that the "Elite Eight" are trying to ban the non-racing regions from putting on a club race that is just plain silly. No discussion like that ever occurred nor does the math add up. The non-racing regions have a vote just like the racing regions. How can eight regions outvote ten regions? The math does not add up? Nor was there any motion made by anyone to such an effect and therefore there is no minutes on the SEDIV record about such a thing because it did not happen. Nor is that something to be proposed at the annual meeting. If if that fiction were fact I would oppose it. Again my region may possible help another region with its first club race. Again another issue Matt claims as fact that is fiction. Capt. John can verify that.

It is not "all about Buccaneer". It is about division wide issues of not enough workers/stewards, a very crowded race calendar, and the desire of some regions with either no race or one race to get a decent chance to have a date that at least potentially won't be a loser versus regions that have a bunch of races. As a division we are trying to work out those issues which I thought is what REs are suppose to do. What we did agree to do at the annual meeting is discuss the problem again.

Matt, I don't agree with Buccaneer idea either (not that you asked) because it does not fit what my region wants in the near future either. You can even ask Capt. John about that too. But I will listen to an idea. My point is also that you have made all kinds of outlandish claims about what happened in this "secret meeting" when there was never one and you have put out a lot of incorrect facts.
Barry H.
 
Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 20 2005, 01:34 PM
Andy,

Name one issue that wasn't real. Third time I've asked and you still have no answer. "Matt always does this he always says that, he always...." About what? Pick a topic. If you're gong to throw out accusations, back them up like I do.

[snapback]66066[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

@#@&$#%& Matt! Now you owe me a freakin keyboard, cuz this one if full of sticky orange juice that I was (stupidly) drinking when I read THAT gem!

THAT line is a classic...

Hey, at least I wasn't using my laptop.

It's just a Dell, shoot me a PM and I'll forward my shipping address....
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 20 2005, 07:10 PM
@#@&$#%& Matt! Now you owe me a freakin keyboard, cuz this one if full of sticky orange juice that I was (stupidly) drinking when I read THAT gem!

THAT line is a classic...

Hey, at least I wasn't using my laptop.

It's just a Dell, shoot me  a PM and I'll forward my shipping address....
[snapback]66082[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

And you don't name any either...
 
Originally posted by apexingsupra@Nov 20 2005, 07:03 PM
What John said. John I don't even think you can say the proposed idea was "tabled". There was never a motion made to even consider the idea. It was just discussed. For it to be "tabled" there would have been a motion on it, discussion, and then it would be voted up, down, or tabled. I don't remember such a motion nor do I think the minutes of the mid-year meeting will reflect such a motion being made.

As to the claim by Matt that the "Elite Eight" are trying to ban the non-racing regions from putting on a club race that is just plain silly. No discussion like that ever occurred nor does the math add up. The non-racing regions have a vote just like the racing regions. How can eight regions outvote ten regions? The math does not add up? Nor was there any motion made by anyone to such an effect and therefore there is no minutes on the SEDIV record about such a thing because it did not happen. Nor is that something to be proposed at the annual meeting. If if that fiction were fact I would oppose it. Again my region may possible help another region with its first club race. Again another issue Matt claims as fact that is fiction. Capt. John can verify that.

It is not "all about Buccaneer". It is about division wide issues of not enough workers/stewards, a very crowded race calendar, and the desire of some regions with either no race or one race to get a decent chance to have a date that at least potentially won't be a loser versus regions that have a bunch of races. As a division we are trying to work out those issues which I thought is what REs are suppose to do. What we did agree to do at the annual meeting is discuss the problem again.

Matt, I don't agree with Buccaneer idea either (not that you asked) because it does not fit what my region wants in the near future either. You can even ask Capt. John about that too.  But I will listen to an idea. My point is also that you have made all kinds of outlandish claims about what happened in this "secret meeting" when there was never one and you have put out a lot of incorrect facts.
Barry H.
[snapback]66081[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

What facts were incorrect? That Roebling could theoretically wind up with 11 races while everybody else gets 3? That 16 races could end up split between RA and Roebling and the other two divsions that call that area home while we get reduced to 6? If we had less stewards and more workers we'd be fine but we've made all our workers stewards. Tell me, why do you need 27 stewards at a race for 110 cars? The only time I know that we had a serious problem in FL was a few years ago when the workers and officials abandoned us to go do a pro race. Mike Cox mobilized us and asked us all to work a race or two. I said Hell yea. Turned out that we didn't even have to but more than willing and ready. I think every FL driver would be more than willing to instead of giving up races. And why are we finding out about this four months after the fact? Why didn't you just come out and say dirvers need to do something about this. We would and we will. Give me the flags and a call before my race group! :023:
 
Originally posted by Toni@Nov 20 2005, 02:17 AM
Sometime you guys might learn not to shoot the messenger. Matt gave you information to use to keep your racing convenient and close to home.

I was in the meeting. I heard the proposal made by members of the Buccaneer Region. It was supported by members of the Alabama Region and others. The Director of Area 12 tabled the discussion and set a time of Friday night of the Jekyll meeting weekend in January to come to a determination about the proposal. The gathering is limited to the REs and the two Directors of SEDiv.

The proposal was to limit the number of races that a region could put on to:
1 National
2 regionals
1 driver’s school
Limit the number of regions that can put on a race to those regions who currently have a date on the SEDiv schedule.

It had nothing to do with SARRC. SARRC already has a limit to the number of races that a Region can put on – 4.
It had nothing to do with ECR. ECR already has a limit to the number of races per track – 1 per track.
The GCR limits the number of nationals per track to two. SEDiv has a waiver from the SCCA Board of Directors to put on the SEDiv Double National at a track where a third National occurs.

I have nothing against Buccaneer Region. I work all of their races. I raced all of their races when I was a racer. I have made financial contributions to the tracks previous two paving funds. I have nothing against Alabama Region except to wish they would race at Barbra. It is a great place but I understand why they don’t race there.

This proposal, if passed, would seriously change your racing. The Pro IT at Road Atlanta would go away. How could they have a series with only two races? You have to finish 4 regional races to keep your national license. You will have to travel to keep your license. Not only will this put limits on free enterprise by Regions to provide a racing product to their racers but it will also give other racing organizations open dates at tracks. Atlanta Region has already lost the Labor Day date at Road Atlanta to a group that pays more and makes more revenue for Road Atlanta. There will be another group ready to take the race date should SCCA decline to keep the dates they have. Which National will Central Florida give up, Sebring or Daytona? Will Atlanta give up a SARRC race or the ARRC? Which regional will North Carolina give up, the 13 hour or the SARRC/MARRS? They would only be able to have 2 regional races.

There are 18 regions in the Southeast Division. 18 people who will decide where and when you will race. Did they ask for your opinion? If you wish to give the track dates to other groups, then you might just find that you will have nowhere convenient to race SCCA.

Thanks Matt. You did a service for the racers by bringing this into the light and out of the closed door meeting.

Toni Creighton
[snapback]66028[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

It is interesting that two people can attend the same meeting but come away with a different memory or impression but that happens. I want to clarify what the Alabama region "supported" at the last meeting. It supported dialogue on the need to possibly trim the calendar some by regions that have a lot of races to allow other regions who want to get on the calendar. I never on behalf of the Alabama region said "I want to adopt the Buccaneer proposal". It was never put up for a vote or a motion. I don't even agree with the proposal by Buccaneer but I respect their trying to come up with a solution. My region has no current desire to put on a national. I don't even think we could nor do we want a driver's school. That proposal does not work for the Alabama region but I listened to what they had to say.

If anyone said they wanted to prevent other non-racing regions from being able to put a race on the calendar then I must have been in the men's room. I never heard that. The point about trying to open up some dates on the calendar is to let non-racing regions who would like to club race get a chance to get a date. And that is about SARRC because SARRC is the success formula for most races in SEDIV. SARRC has mileage rules and no event on the same or consecutive weekend which limits the number of events and therefore who can have a SARRC by virtue of the regions who already block the calendar by their "traditional date" which is another rule. That has been the biggest issue for my region that last two years. Trying to get a date squeezed into a calendar that does not conflict with a SARRC rule. Just putting on a regional these days does not attract the number of entrants necessary at least from my prior analysis.

I would vote absolute "no" to such a proposal to limit non-racing regions and I can't imagine such a thought not getting shot down. My region has been in informal discussions with the Chattanooga region to potentially co-sanction a race with them so why would I support a "ban" on them. My region co-sanctioned a Time Trial/driver's school with the TVR region this year to get their feet wet managing such an event and it was a huge success. We may do it again next year even though they are sufficiently versed in how to do it now.

What is being discussed is not some dire re-scrambling of everyone's traditional dates. I don't expect the ARRC to go away from its date just as I would expect North Carolina to continue to run it double MARRS double SARRC. Simply put there is a need for some compromise which is what happened at the last meeting. My region had a July SARRC race date that conflicted with Florida. All we wanted was to put on one race. Florida has a lot more than that. I met with Capt. John and we talked about it. Ultimately the Florida region said fine, we will get off that date which is in the dead of summer anyhow. That is the type of compromise I am looking for not some wholesale OK everybody's traditional dates are now gone and now we start filling in the calendar. I do know that we can not just keep adding race dates as more regions want to race or newer tracks open up like Dragonsridge near Old Dominion. We don't have the resources and we would be diluting a fixed racing "pie" within the division that I think hurts all the racing regions.

I do not expect the Buccaneer idea to be an actual proposal at the annual meeting. What I do expect from my remembrance is that we have a meeting to discuss the crowded calendar, limited resources, and how to open up some dates for non-racing regions to get a shot at racing or possibly allowing the Alabama region to get a decent date on another SARRC. I don't think that is asking for too much. I wish we could go back to Barber's too but I don't think it is in the cards in the very near future.

Thanks.

Barry H.

Barry H.
 
Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 20 2005, 02:19 PM
And you don't name any either...
[snapback]66083[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Matt,

THIS IS ONE.

So there you have one RE's thoughts and opinions on the subject. No secrecy, no witchcraft, no hidden agenda. Time to go, there is a black helicopter in the back yard offering me a lift to a Mexican Restaurant so I can make it accross the border.

John Anderson
Reg Exec
Fl.Region-SCCA
Click to expand...

No closed door meeting, no secret handshake. Just an issue to deal with that may make sense from 10,000 feet but not to the local guy. The issue has been tabled to gather more info and maybe even some member input. Holy crap - maybe the right thing is happening!

Maybe a different approach may net you some more support. Get it?

Damn, I thought I was done. Done, done, done. :bash_1_:

AB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top