Different idea for championship(s)

B

Bret Bienerth

New member
Is it time to look at how we run Conference championships? I would like to consider a different structure that might encourage more entrants than our current setup. Now you have to enter 7 races in order to qualify for a championship and the majority of our entrants do not run this many races. I think we should be able to restructure what it takes to win a championship so that it is an obtainable goal for more drivers.
What I propose is three separate championships. Two divisional titles and a Conference wide title. The two divisions would be made up of Seattle and Mission in the North and Grass Valley and Portland in the South. Each track would host two divisional races so you would only need to enter four races that are fairly close to your home to compete for a divisional title. A Conference wide title would be staged with each Conference track hosting one double header weekend. This would provide ten races over five weekends and keep Spokane on the schedule.
This format would encourage the drivers who are not able to stretch their budgets in the current format to seven races to run more as they would only need four races that are the shortest tows to be in a points fight. A Conference wide championship would also not involve nearly the expense especially if you are in a class with many cars as you would only have to make five trips rather than the thirteen or fourteen trips that you may need now. I would imagine that many drivers would enter the Conference wide championship races and their closest divisional championship. Some may try to win both divisions and the Conference wide title.
I think this format would encourage more participation because of the reduced time commitment required and the reduced towing cost for entrants.

Bret Bienerth
 
Interesting idea.

I like ideas that ruffle the feathers. It'll be interesting to see some of the other responses.

It does leave Spokane out to dry (with respect to a divisonal championship).
 
The downside to this Bret is that all of the tracks are not equally supported. The points were changed years ago to encourage drivers to race at all of the tracks, but in these tough times it is good to think outside the box. That is why we have been promoting double race week-ends on the other thread, but I wonder, is there a way to combine these two divergent ideas?
 
PRO3 did something like this for a couple of years. PRO3 had a Pacific Raceways Challenge. When most of the drivers were from the Seattle area, the Seattle races were by far the most competitive. We got a sponsor to put up some money and took the points from the three Seattle races to crown first, second and third. Winner got $300, second $200. third $100. We dropped the Challenge last year when pretty much all of the hot shoes in PRO3 were making all of the races.

For this current suggestion, do you have a banquet for each division? Or does the ICSCC banquet run 4+ hours handing out awards? LOL

Personally I think even dropping races waters down the championships.
 
How about our own run-off, with divisional champions and up to the top 3 in class being invited to race for the gold?? Too much like SCCA??? Yep I agree. thats why I am a ICSCC and CSCC member.

This has merit, and I am willing to entertain the change. I know Cascade has its own award for being the class winner along with doing something else for the club. This is not well publicised except in CSCC. That award is given out at our banquet.

I really like the thought, especially with CSCC having had one race thrown out of the points because we had (key word) 4 races. This years budget for racing is tight, and I have not been able to spend much time on the track. If I was going for any championship with my slower than the rest of the GP cars I'd have to win by default, attending every race. I have a problem with buying a championship instead of earning it.
 
Ick. No offense, but this becomes a way to justify creating even more championships while expecting less paricipation. The simple truth is that if the Portland racers and the Seattle racers stay home, all the other tracks whither and die. It would even encourage Portland and Seattle racers to not support each other's races endangering the economic model even further. If this is meant to address the problem of having too many Conference events on the schedule, that is a completely different problem and this is not the solution.

Championships MEAN something because they are hard to get - and lots of folks that enjoy racing NEVER get one. A championship is meant to reward a driver that can get excellent results at the diverse range of tracks we race at in the course of the year. Divisional championships like you propose would reward one track specialists at PIR and at Pacific.

I've attended a lot of Conference races over the years and had more than one championship slip through my fingers because of bad luck, mechanical failure, or stupid mistakes - so I am in the boat of having never won one. I currently have a car that is quite underpowered for the classes I run in - but it makes me try much harder to maximize what I get out of the car and I know the only way I will win under the current structure is by reliably placing as high as I can and hoping that my competition has more breakage because they are more highly stressed or spent their budget on improving the car instead of attending more races. As it turns out, I beat guys who are faster than myself all the time because they drop to mechanical problems or racing incidents, or just can't afford to come out to that particular race.

To your point - ALL CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE BOUGHT in one way or another. Racing at all isn't cheap. You can spend your racing budget on a fast car and then only be able to attend the minimum 7 races to qualify, or you can shift some of the modification budget over to running 11 or 12 races to make sure you maximize your points opportunities - you spend the money one way or the other and both are valid strategies for chasing a championship!
 
Last edited:
I agree with Rick, start making up different sub championships and it will bring an end to those "out of the way" tracks we all love. I is hard to win an ICSCC championship and should be.
 
As a second year racer with conference I must agree with Lance, Kyle, Rick and Jeff. If you look at the conference history on the new website you will see championships are rewarded by the effort put in. Not always, but often. Part of the reason I came to conference from SCCA was I wanted to run more/different tracks other than the 2 they could provide.
Yes travel is tough on the family schedule and wallet. But it is also greatly rewarding when I can do it. Like the others stated it should not be easy. If it was there would be no meaning to "Championship".
There will always be the haves and the have not's. I usually fall in to the later. Last year’s goal was 3 novice races, but some weird unexpected stuff happened with family, friends, and sponsors. We ended up running 10 races! We went to Spokane, Mission, and Portland for the first time. It was great times. Running different race tracks made me a better driver. My car never failed to finish one session.

This year things have changed and I will be lucky to run 7 races to qualify for a Championship placing. But my family and I made some choices this year knowing what could happen to a Championship placing.
We have "upgraded" the car and it has been a struggle. The Enduro, new motor build for different class, vacation etc. Maybe next year it will be better. Maybe not.

You still have to earn a championship via showing up and running/finishing more races then the other guy. The reasons they did not do not matter. It will always be better to be lucky then good.
Effort and finishing over the season needs to be rewarded.

Besides, I want to see my friends at the track more then 3 or 4 times.:D

If we lose the distance tracks we will end up like SCCA. Running only two tracks a year. Bordem will set in. Interest will wain. Membership and participation will decrease.

But don't hammer anyone for open thinking out of the box even if the idea goes no were. Fresh thinking is what keeps us update, change is constant and reminds sometimes what we do is for a valid reason.
Challenges to our current thinking should be welcomed as it validates what why and where we should or should not do things.
 
Let's get back to the idea of double race week-ends and see where that goes since there is a lot of interest and the worker base is behind it.
 
The question of supporting the other tracks is an even bigger one this year. With an increase in the number of races the resources to race become more limited yet the requirement to meet a higher minimum entry to qualify for championship points strains the racing budget for most. The result is fewer entries for event. This fewer entries equal higher entry costs. This in turn equates to lower entries, and so it begins. Much like California's broken auto insurance law.

So how do we determine the number races? Is it based on a scientific formula? Do we just pull a number out of the hat, HOPE it can be sustained while committing the Clubs to what may be a bank account breaking commitment to the track owners? Is it based on the number of licensed drivers in each club with a maximum total of races for the season? Maybe that is how it should be. A club that has a lot of drivers gets the most races. If they do not have the track time available to run all those maybe they can "sell" it to another club. But this creates a "large" club scenario which leave the smaller ones in the dust. So then you do a draft style where the smaller clubs get a minimum number of races and first pick on dates. They could even have first right to "buy" one of the excess.

The beauty of all this is that we have the unique ability to discuss it, argue even, come to some kind of consensus, VOTE on it and make it our way of racing! I LOVE THE HELL OUT OF ICSCC!!
 
westipton said:
Let's get back to the idea of double race week-ends and see where that goes since there is a lot of interest and the worker base is behind it.
Click to expand...

I agree and love the idea. I know it gets brought up every year, but there always seems to be some reason why it doesn't happen.
 
Sorry, I know people want to get back to the double race weekend issue... BUT

I'm still on the fence about the OP's idea. However, I don't think his idea degrades the idea of the overall Conference championship. To win the overall Championship nothing changes, you still have to visit X number of races per year (in and out of "division"). It's still a significant challenge regardless of a divisional championship.

Maybe it would lead to lower entries ... maybe not ... that's all speculative.

My concern/issue with the idea is that, if someone is running for a championship they are going to run all the races they can anyway. On top of that, typically the class champions have the faster cars also. So you could very concievable have a Conference class champion that also wins both divisional championships... which in my mind defeats the purpose of the divisional champion. Unless of course you restrict a driver to choosing 1 division to run in... which seems completely ridiculous to me.

Like a couple of people have already commented; it really is cool and fun to be part of an organization that can openly debate and decide it's own future.
 
How about we leave it at a 7 race minimum (10 max?) but you must race at all five tracks. The home track advantage goes away. The outlying venues get a boost. The regs need a single sentence of modification. You can stil buy a championship by doing 10 races. Just adds a few more tow miles. Shoot have all 5 tracks host a double.......10 races 5 weekends, gives me an extra 3 races I can run for just a minor increase in budget.
 
Some interesting ideas.

Here are a couple road blocks to throw in the way:

1) Double races at Pacific Raceways, given the restrictions imposed upon us, really is not doable. Believe me, it's talked about, but that afternoon deadline keeps stalling it.

2) A requirement to race at every track to get a championship would be a real hardship this year. Mission only had one race weekend, and so did Spokane. One breakdown (racecar or tow vehicle) could ruin your chances at a championship for the entire season.

Feel free to find a solution!

Marie Fjellanger
Group 6's #8 pitcrew and IRDC slave
 
If you need another championship consider club champions, The SCCBC has a club championship. You collect points for this at all races at mission. CACC and Conference events. You could also consider collecting points at an " away " race. We hope to have at least two conference races on the schedule next year, perhaps 2 double race weekends. Keep up the discourse on this and always keep an open mind.

Roland Stec
 
No problem Marie. Make it 4 out of 5 tracks and a double at every track but Pacific. Same benifits; limits home field advantage, reduces number of race weekends needed to qualify for the championship, supports the outlying venues. Do the whole thing in 4 weekends, better yet.

The way it is now you can win the championship by racing at Portland and Pacific alone
 
Pacific could work for us if the races were shortened a tad, and a few other items come to pass, but something has to be done for sure. As I mentioned on the other thread, every club should attempt to do one double next year as a test, and we can take it from there. The feedback from Mission was very positive and supportive of more doubles, and we need to pursue that idea from here forward.
The worker base is aging and is not going to continue doing 20 + events per year between Conference, SCCA, Sovren, the run-offs and the occasional pro event. The expense to them, in spite of the worker fund is still considerable, not to mention the time off work and the time away from home and family. More races over fewer week-ends will benefit us all, and keep this organization ahead of the curve where we usually reside. Fewer events with more seat time per event, including more actual racing, is the key to this deal in my view.
Many race series are being condensed, or have been already, and that covers cars, bikes and karts. The big dogs like Nascar and F1 excluded of course, but they will have to trim down eventually if this global economic mess doesn't right itself soon.
 
I agree 100% with Wes,.

And yes PR could be tweaked. Shorten the races, put the CW novices in with regular race groups, combine groups for practice, lose the special races...do anything as 25 minutes of track time on Saturday does not make me want to tow to Seattle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top