SARRC Points Proposal
- Thread starter seckerich
- Start date
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
I too an having a hard time understanding the point of all this. Set me straight if I have any of this wrong.
Raceit is not in favor of double race weekends or money going to the SARRC trophy fund and can't understand the allure of double race weekends, SARRC points or why Area 12 drivers won't tow down to his neck of the woods to race. Well raceit, consider part of your problem solved. If you only attend one half of a non-SARRC double race weekend you have killed two birds with one stone. You do not have to run a double and can rest assured that the $4 the hosting region collected from you anyway will not go to SARRC.
As I alluded to in my last post the allure of the SARRC in Area 3 is only one aspect that draws the drivers to races there, but besides double race weekends, it is probably the strongest. I guess that answers your question. Also, just so you know, the SIC typically has a lower turn out in part to the very fact that it is the SARRC Invitational Challenge. However, the entry fee is cheap, you get lots of track time and it keeps out the riff-raff.
RX3 apparently has had issues at races held in Area 3 and his items 1-4 have been resolved for the most part in Area 12 and for damn sure by the Atlanta Region. RX3, I suggest you present your problem to the people that can affect change in your Area which in case you did not know is not us or not here.
On the other hand, the part about Atlanta Region not being a freindly place to race IS something I can help you with. If you ever have an issue at one of our races, on behalf of the Atlanta Region adminsitration, I assure you we would like to hear from you so we can take the appropriate corrective action.
Also,
Your wish has been granted, but since I did not come out of some bottle you do not have two left...
Now, let's try to stick to the topic please.
Thanks,
Interesting topic. Good discussion.
I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months.
I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Interesting topic. Good discussion.
I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months.
[/b]
And that is an entirely different issue - thankfully a national issue with little effect for us folk.
I can't figure out what RX3 or raceit wants. Does he want us to stop having successful double SAARCs? Does he want us to help make his region like ours and run double SAARCs? Does he just want SAARCs to go away?
Ron
seckerich
New member
You are missing something in their posts Ron. No names and new account = Florida Race director me thinks.
And some of these drivers finish half the distance with "mule" motors to just qualify for the big show. Now that is real racing!! Not all--just some.Interesting topic. Good discussion.
I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months.
[/b]
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
God, I hope that is not the case. If so, it would speak volumes about the quality of their leadership.
The Sarrc rules seem to work prety well as they are now. . .
The 3 race format CFR used at Daytona with finishing position setting the grid for the next race was terrific. I think CFR is doing a very good job and I race regardless of Sarrc points as my schedule allows.
It seems to me that the SeDiv is doing a great job juggling Regional, National and Series racing.
Neal Norton
The 3 race format CFR used at Daytona with finishing position setting the grid for the next race was terrific. I think CFR is doing a very good job and I race regardless of Sarrc points as my schedule allows.
It seems to me that the SeDiv is doing a great job juggling Regional, National and Series racing.
Neal Norton
RX3
New member
Tom, Steve
First off I thought you knew who I was. I have raced with both of you and sat in more than one SARRC meeting with Tom as I am the SARRC representative for Central Florida Region. I drive the #9 RX3 in ITA from Central Florida, nothing new there. I am also the Race Board Chairman for Central Florida region. Nothing new here either as I have signed posts stating that on this forum.
What I did not know is that SARRC has granted waivers for more doubles. What happened to the committee vote? Tom, was a waiver really granted?
And yes like Russ Mcbride said I would like to see something done about the points. I made that statement at last year’s SARRC meeting. I don’t know how to fix it, but I do think it needs to be looked at. And I agree with Steve Parrish that the championship needs something too. I don’t have that answer either, but it should be looked at and I think it could be made better.
I wish the SARRC Committee would stop making rules that affect how a region holds a race and spend more time making this divisional series better instead of diluting the championship with petty bickering and rule changes so that a region or an area can have its way.
We do not need to change the rules we need to fix a few things.
Robin Langlotz
First off I thought you knew who I was. I have raced with both of you and sat in more than one SARRC meeting with Tom as I am the SARRC representative for Central Florida Region. I drive the #9 RX3 in ITA from Central Florida, nothing new there. I am also the Race Board Chairman for Central Florida region. Nothing new here either as I have signed posts stating that on this forum.
What I did not know is that SARRC has granted waivers for more doubles. What happened to the committee vote? Tom, was a waiver really granted?
And yes like Russ Mcbride said I would like to see something done about the points. I made that statement at last year’s SARRC meeting. I don’t know how to fix it, but I do think it needs to be looked at. And I agree with Steve Parrish that the championship needs something too. I don’t have that answer either, but it should be looked at and I think it could be made better.
I wish the SARRC Committee would stop making rules that affect how a region holds a race and spend more time making this divisional series better instead of diluting the championship with petty bickering and rule changes so that a region or an area can have its way.
We do not need to change the rules we need to fix a few things.
Robin Langlotz
Ron Earp
Administrator
Hi Robin,
You might want to sign your posts with your name in the future. It'd help us newbies who are not "well-connected" to learn identities.
Knowing your name wouldn't change anything I've posted or questions I asked, but knowing your function certainly puts a new light on the thread.
Now, back to the SAARC points suggestions......
Ron
Parrish57
New member
Now that we're back to our regularly scheduled programming, a few thoughts:
There seems to be a general consensus, not just on this board but also racers I've spoken to at the track, that the formula for determining the SARRC champ could use some tweeks. I think that changing the tie break rules to put more weight on season performance is the right direction. To balance that and not take away the importance of the SIC I'd be in favor of making SIC participation manditory in order to be crowned champion. What do ya think?
I've expresses my opinion on increasing the number of races counted for the series, but an idea came to me as an incentive for those who want to run more races. In the CCPS series we give bonus points for each Entry. Those points count toward the championship regardless of where you finish, even DNF. What do you think about 1 or 2 bonus points to reward drivers that race more than 6?
Just thinking out loud....
Steve
There seems to be a general consensus, not just on this board but also racers I've spoken to at the track, that the formula for determining the SARRC champ could use some tweeks. I think that changing the tie break rules to put more weight on season performance is the right direction. To balance that and not take away the importance of the SIC I'd be in favor of making SIC participation manditory in order to be crowned champion. What do ya think?
I've expresses my opinion on increasing the number of races counted for the series, but an idea came to me as an incentive for those who want to run more races. In the CCPS series we give bonus points for each Entry. Those points count toward the championship regardless of where you finish, even DNF. What do you think about 1 or 2 bonus points to reward drivers that race more than 6?
Just thinking out loud....
Steve
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
Robin,
I didn’t know it was you. I also was not aware you were the CFR SARRC rep. What happened to Mike Schmidt? However, I did know you were the Race Chair. Although I might not agree with some of your decisions I strongly believe in a capitalistic free market society with as little authoritative (government) intervention as possible, so if what you got going is working then congratulations and maybe the rest of us should take a closer look. If it’s not working than let the rest of us (or at least some) help you turn that around.
We (the SARRC Committee) can wave anything we damn well please IF a majority agrees AND it is within the scope of the SARRC SOP. If you need more doubles (because as one, very large geographical region with a boat load of drivers, only two tracks and being schedule limited you need more ) let's talk about it. I think you’ll find most of us are receptive and reasonable towards worthy requests.
To be honest I do not know why we have the two rules that effectively limit one double per region. Actually, I lied about being honest. Why the SARRC rules dictate when (as far as same or consecutive weekends less that 450 miles apart) and what number of races each region will run is done in part to maintain a cohesion (and when I say cohesion I mean “no one region feels like they’re getting screwed out of their fair share of entry fees”) that is necessary to make a Division wide points series continue to exist as long as SARRC has. Could it be better? Hell yes and all we have to do is get each track to clear its calendar and let SEDiv have first pick for our race weekends. In other words it ain’t that easy.
To get back on track I think Russ said he had no strong option either way about the items Steve would like addressed. I am in favor of a different tie breaker or almost anything (within reason) that will make the series better for everyone involved. I also like Steve Parrish's ideas about entry points. Mandatory SIC attendance is interesting,too and like Russ said it's like the National boys putting everything on one throw of the dice every year.
So if you have some ideas I would like to hear them as would probably the rest of the Committee and preferably well in advance of Jekyll so we all have time to discuss it with the members we represent.
I didn’t know it was you. I also was not aware you were the CFR SARRC rep. What happened to Mike Schmidt? However, I did know you were the Race Chair. Although I might not agree with some of your decisions I strongly believe in a capitalistic free market society with as little authoritative (government) intervention as possible, so if what you got going is working then congratulations and maybe the rest of us should take a closer look. If it’s not working than let the rest of us (or at least some) help you turn that around.
We (the SARRC Committee) can wave anything we damn well please IF a majority agrees AND it is within the scope of the SARRC SOP. If you need more doubles (because as one, very large geographical region with a boat load of drivers, only two tracks and being schedule limited you need more
) let's talk about it. I think you’ll find most of us are receptive and reasonable towards worthy requests. To be honest I do not know why we have the two rules that effectively limit one double per region. Actually, I lied about being honest. Why the SARRC rules dictate when (as far as same or consecutive weekends less that 450 miles apart) and what number of races each region will run is done in part to maintain a cohesion (and when I say cohesion I mean “no one region feels like they’re getting screwed out of their fair share of entry fees”) that is necessary to make a Division wide points series continue to exist as long as SARRC has. Could it be better? Hell yes and all we have to do is get each track to clear its calendar and let SEDiv have first pick for our race weekends. In other words it ain’t that easy.
To get back on track I think Russ said he had no strong option either way about the items Steve would like addressed. I am in favor of a different tie breaker or almost anything (within reason) that will make the series better for everyone involved. I also like Steve Parrish's ideas about entry points. Mandatory SIC attendance is interesting,too and like Russ said it's like the National boys putting everything on one throw of the dice every year.
So if you have some ideas I would like to hear them as would probably the rest of the Committee and preferably well in advance of Jekyll so we all have time to discuss it with the members we represent.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Those are some interesting concepts. Clearly, I'm new to all of this, but I personally like the idea of rewarding folks, even if an extremely small bonus, for running more races in the SAARC series.
I do think the SIC attendance should be mandatory to win the series. I don't think there is a direct analogy in sports, but about the best I can come up with is making the playoffs in something like hockey. You might have more points than the other teams in games before the playoffs, but you still have to play those last few games before the playoffs, even if you have enough points to make it without them.
Has anyone ever won the SIC by not showing up, that is had so many points that the 2nd place competitor couldn't come close and the 1st place points holder just skipped the race?
Ron
I do think the SIC attendance should be mandatory to win the series. I don't think there is a direct analogy in sports, but about the best I can come up with is making the playoffs in something like hockey. You might have more points than the other teams in games before the playoffs, but you still have to play those last few games before the playoffs, even if you have enough points to make it without them.
Has anyone ever won the SIC by not showing up, that is had so many points that the 2nd place competitor couldn't come close and the 1st place points holder just skipped the race?
Ron
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
Ron, you keep saying your new to this but you have 3 times more posts than me. What's up with that?
I think it is impossible to win the SIC without showing up but Sean O'Connell won the SARRC Championship in FB this year w/o running the SIC. You either have a class that is lightly subscribed or you're the best and everyone else sucks.
Someday, I hope to prove the latter condition.
seckerich
New member
I figured who you were after your last post Robin.
No new waivers were granted for doubles. SC has a waiver that I believe runs out next year to use any track for their double. They used Roebling a few times and then moved to CCR's home track at CMP. They have run there for 2 years as we work together to not impact each other. I believe Florida got every race they asked for at the mid-year meeting. Am I wrong?? Every region is limited to 4 SARRCS and may only hold one double at any track so nothing has changed. This whole thread was supposed to be about point totals toward championships and how we break a tie. You went off on a tangent about everything else in the series. I think we have something great that just needs a little tweaking on points. If you have some other gripes then bring them up to the SARRC committee and lets talk. Feel free to PM me a number and lets talk before Jeckyl.
RX3
New member
I am with you guy on trying to make a change.
I am going to try write a little history as why some things were done.
as I was one of the people that wrote the rules along with Jim C. and others back when.
Also does anyone know about what (raceit) said someone ran the SIC and did not run three races.
If this happened this is not good for SARRC I can remember when we told CEO of SCCA (Nick Craw) he could not race with us becouse he was not a member of sediv.
I have also heard this from some other drivers.
I am going to try write a little history as why some things were done.
as I was one of the people that wrote the rules along with Jim C. and others back when.
Also does anyone know about what (raceit) said someone ran the SIC and did not run three races.
If this happened this is not good for SARRC I can remember when we told CEO of SCCA (Nick Craw) he could not race with us becouse he was not a member of sediv.
I have also heard this from some other drivers.
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
Same goes here. My info is under SARRC officals on the SEDiv site.
Ron Earp
Administrator
I post a lot and ask lots of questions trying to get my broken race cars to run?
Seriously, I just finished my first "ITS" season so am new to it. I only completed three races this year but hope make a full season out of 2008. It wasn't for lack of trying in 2007, just a combination of luck, newness to the car and getting it to run, etc.
JeffYoung
New member
For what it is worth, in 05, I ran 2 races and attempted about 5 others. I asked to run the SIC and was properly denied. No ITA/S/7 guy this year ran without more than 3 races under their belt.
Steve P. -- I'm probably a classic example of why the 1-2 points to encourage participation might not be a good idea. I can run 8-10 races finishing anywhere from 2nd to 10th. Probably not a champsionship effort -well not probably, not one.
With those bonus points, this year, I believe I would have finished THIRD in the points.
So, my position:
1. I am slightly in favor of counting 1/3 of the SARRC races with perhaps maximum in the event we add more of say 8 or 10?
2. I don't think staying with 6 instead is a terrible idea, but I do think (1) above helps a bit with consistency.
3. I think that you should be required to run the SIC to win the champsionship (this is true de facto now in all IT classes).
4. The SIC should be the seventh race, count double points, but TIES SHOULD BE BROKEN BASED ON SEASON CONSISTENCY. I would say use average finish over the 6/7/8 regular season races to break the tie.
Let's get a consensus (I'm not strongly wedded to any of the above except 3) and get something done.
Robin, I'm with Tom. If Florida needs more SARRCs, let's vote for waivers so they can do it. I'd like to see more Florida guys at the SIC.
Steve P. -- I'm probably a classic example of why the 1-2 points to encourage participation might not be a good idea. I can run 8-10 races finishing anywhere from 2nd to 10th. Probably not a champsionship effort -well not probably, not one.
With those bonus points, this year, I believe I would have finished THIRD in the points.
So, my position:
1. I am slightly in favor of counting 1/3 of the SARRC races with perhaps maximum in the event we add more of say 8 or 10?
2. I don't think staying with 6 instead is a terrible idea, but I do think (1) above helps a bit with consistency.
3. I think that you should be required to run the SIC to win the champsionship (this is true de facto now in all IT classes).
4. The SIC should be the seventh race, count double points, but TIES SHOULD BE BROKEN BASED ON SEASON CONSISTENCY. I would say use average finish over the 6/7/8 regular season races to break the tie.
Let's get a consensus (I'm not strongly wedded to any of the above except 3) and get something done.
Robin, I'm with Tom. If Florida needs more SARRCs, let's vote for waivers so they can do it. I'd like to see more Florida guys at the SIC.
Butch Kummer
New member
I've discussed this with Steve and Tom in person, but to go on record:
1. Still count best six SARRC finishes prior to the SIC.
2. SIC counts as double points.
3. Change the tie-breaker to total wins, then total seconds, then total thirds even if it exceeds the top six finishes. This is the same as the tie-breaker for determining divisional champions for National racing.
#3 would encourage people to run more than the minimum number (6) races, which is the point of all this.
On other topics:
Jay Marshall received an invitation to the SIC even though he finished only two GTA races in 2007 (he had a couple of DNFs as well), then won the SIC but not the championship. Apparently he "mis-entered" the February Sebring race in SPO rather than GTA, and this was confirmed by Jim Creighton prior to his entry for the SIC being accepted. The "three finishes" rule is the ONLY SARRC rule that cannot be waived by the Committee, and it was not in this case either.
In general, people tend to run Single SARRCs in their backyard and travel for Doubles.
Labor Day 2008 will be a Double SARRC at Barber. In time we feel this could become a 350+ car event (which is 700 entries).
If someone has a problem with how Atlanta Region events are run, I DEFINITELY would like to hear from you. We've been working hard on Registration issues of the past and must be making progress since people are now complaining when they have to stand in line for ten whole minutes. We are constantly looking at what we can do to improve the "racing experience" for our members (drivers and workers alike) and I'm certainly willing to listen to whatever suggestions you might have.
1. Still count best six SARRC finishes prior to the SIC.
2. SIC counts as double points.
3. Change the tie-breaker to total wins, then total seconds, then total thirds even if it exceeds the top six finishes. This is the same as the tie-breaker for determining divisional champions for National racing.
#3 would encourage people to run more than the minimum number (6) races, which is the point of all this.
On other topics:
Jay Marshall received an invitation to the SIC even though he finished only two GTA races in 2007 (he had a couple of DNFs as well), then won the SIC but not the championship. Apparently he "mis-entered" the February Sebring race in SPO rather than GTA, and this was confirmed by Jim Creighton prior to his entry for the SIC being accepted. The "three finishes" rule is the ONLY SARRC rule that cannot be waived by the Committee, and it was not in this case either.
In general, people tend to run Single SARRCs in their backyard and travel for Doubles.
Labor Day 2008 will be a Double SARRC at Barber. In time we feel this could become a 350+ car event (which is 700 entries).
If someone has a problem with how Atlanta Region events are run, I DEFINITELY would like to hear from you. We've been working hard on Registration issues of the past and must be making progress since people are now complaining when they have to stand in line for ten whole minutes. We are constantly looking at what we can do to improve the "racing experience" for our members (drivers and workers alike) and I'm certainly willing to listen to whatever suggestions you might have.