|
Nobody needs to be reminded of the current state of the economy and the high gas prices. It makes things tight for everybody, and it makes going to the races even harder. I can't even count the number of people who have told me they are cutting back or quitting racing altogether because of the high cost. I'm sure there are people who don't care what it costs, those are the riders who race AWRCS or GNCC on Saturday, then a CRA on Sunday. But those are the people who have alot more disposable income, and don't mind parting with it. God bless them, but there's alot of us that can't afford to do it. We want to stay in the points race and be eligible for year end awards, but with the number of races, it's getting tough. I'm fortunate to be centrally located to the CRA tracks, with the three farthest tracks being Mansfield, Lightning, and LLR. Still, they are all in the 1 1/2 to 2 hour range away from me, and I'm looking at $75-100 just in fuel to get there and back. Add to that the race fee, gate fees, maintenence and fuel for the quad or bike, and you could be looking at $200 race day.
I am planning on talking to CRA officials, and putting together a proposal for a change in the points system. Please feel free to comment on the proposed changes, either pro or con. Also, if you know any CRA bike riders, ask their opinion. I'm not sure of any forums where the CRA bike guys hang out, so it's going to be by word-of-mouth and by the flier I plan on writing up.
The proposal is to base the year end awards on a throw-away system, which can use the existing points system, or a points system like the GNCC, which I'll get into later. This year there are 37 races (not counting the team races and the triathalon), and under the current system, it's possible for a person to ride a majority of the races, and "buy" their championship for the year, making it tougher for someone who may be a better rider, but unable to afford the costs of attending as many races. Under the new system, a racer's best finishes in 19 races (or about one more than half the total races, for tie breaking purposes, depending on the number of races per year) would count for the year end awards. A person could race more than the 19, or the entire series if they wanted. It would be beneficial to do so, eliminating a few bad races if needed.
There are two points systems which could be used. The first is the system that the GNCC and AWRCS use. Each finishing position receives a set number of points, regardless of the number of entries in a class. 20 for first, 19 for second, 18 for third, and so on. I personally don't favor this system, low turn-out at some tracks would give an unfair advantage. First place out of twenty riders should be worth more points than first out of three or four.
The second points system is the one that's currently in use. The number of points you receive is based on the number of riders per class. The more riders there are, the more points you earn for your finish position. Under this system, you could throw away a first place out of four in favor of a third or fourth out of twenty. This system would require a little more work from the points keepers for the year end awards, but it's also basically the same system in use now, just limiting the number of races needed. As with the current system, racing the maximum number of races would NOT be manditory, a racer may be able to place as an awards winner with only 12 or 13 races. This system could also be implemented immediately.
There is also a third method which could be used to determine the awards winners for the year. It is a more radical approach, there would be a MINIMUM number of races required to place as an awards winner (one more than half the total races in a year, for tie breaking purposes), no throw-aways would be needed, and the points system would be eliminated completely. It would require more work at the end of the year for those in charge of tallying finish positions. The number of entries per race, per class, would not matter. The biggest downfall to this system is forcing riders to race a minimum number of races to be eligable for year end awards. This system would be based entirely on an average system. The rider with the best average finish for the year would earn first place, and so on down the line.
Example.
Rider #1 race results- 1,2,1,5,3 for a total of 12. Average finish- 2.4
Rider #2 race results- 2,1,2,1,4 for a total of 10. Average finish- 2.0
Rider #3 race results-1,1,1,6,5,3 for a total of 17. Average finish-2.83
The CRA may want a show of support for a change to the current system. If that is the case, a petition will be created for CRA members to sign. If any of these new systems are used, it will have no effect on the Buckeye, True Grit, or individual track series. They would be able to run as usual, this would add incentive for racers to attend these races.
This is our opportunity to make our series more competitive, and most importantly, more affordable to all racers. The changes may also allow racers to participate in other series and not have to worry about missing a few CRA races.
_________________
|
