National/ Pro Riders Stealing the Ex Championsh

[WebCrush]

Ok, I was going to be off this one but...

People are human.  

This is a competition.

If you're not good enough, work to get better.  Eric, Jeff, Scott, Des, and all those guys and every guy that was fast before them tries to learn new things every year.  They shouldn't be punished for working hard and trying to reap any minor reward that they can get.  

In 1999, I ran the NASB race at Loudon.  I've only been to Loudon once before in 1993 and I earned a spot in "...And They Walked Away, Part IV" from that experience.  

Anyway, I knew that Eric was fast.  Expected others to be fast.  Met Scott Greenwood that weekend.  He helped me around the track a bit.  Still, I kept working on set up, changes, fuel, etc. all the time I was there.  Didn't win, but I expect to come out to Loudon in 2004 for FUSA and do better.  They could bring Doug Polen out and I wouldn't care.  I still want to beat him, and I expect myself to try and potentially do it every time out.  That's racing.

Ya read me wrong Dave, I'm not putting down any of those guys as 'mean people' or whatnot.  In fact, I consider them all my friends.  I just wanted to point out the fact how these guys win races without even trying.  Our races become setup and extra practice time for them, and they can still easily win.

Come to think of it, I think each and every one has competed in AMA Pro racing successfully

Scott-600ss
Eric-ProThder, SB, 750ss
Jeff-250gp
Des-F-xtreme
Chuck-750ss

I think these guys are just as good as most factory riders, and withOUT the factory support.  They have my utmost respect and awe, but I think we need to examine the licesnce tiering system.  Like others have said, I can't go back and race AM, why can successful Pro riders come back and race EX?

[r6_philly]

I got it, why not just keep the current system and not require people to move up  :o

then the fast slow guys will always stay and play with the other fast slow guys.

everyone who wants to get even faster will go and race EX.

Reduce EX classes and be more like a FUSA format. And call them Pro Sport or something.

Add newbie classes, 3 weekends you are on to AM.

And NO PURSES in AM classes. "Amateur" is really fitting for most of Experts. Not making a living, but somewhat experienced in the hobbie.

The newbies would be "Novices"

[Mongo]

I don't know for absolutely sure, Mongo.  You can't really get inside another man's head.  But it seems to me that they didn't mind not winning as amateurs, but then as experts they found themselves alone at the back.  Soon they weren't coming around any more.

I guess that's where I'm a little lost - if they raced together as Novices what happened when they went Expert?  Usually I see guys that run together all season move up and continue to run together.

I think the main reasons for people quittting are first a lot of riders start doing the fmaily thing.  Wife, kids, house etc. don't leave time or money for racing.  The other reason is plain old burnout - they just get tired of it.  For some of us it's an addicition, but for the vast majority it's just another hobby and they get tired of it eventually. I don't see a way we can keep either of these gorups racing when they are odne with it.  Also FWIW this is based on talking to alot of people who were around when all of these ideas have been tried before including the tiers and back in the day when racing was cheaper as well as no real money to be won so it was done strictly because they wanted to race.

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

 Also FWIW this is based on talking to alot of people who were around when all of these ideas have been tried before including the tiers and back in the day when racing was cheaper as well as no real money to be won so it was done strictly because they wanted to race.

That's some interesting information...  I guess there's no such thing as an original idea.

[StuartV666]

Since the Rules Committee meets in a few days, I emailed Kevin Elliot with Dafan's proposal for a points system for National Championships at the ROC. With Kevin's permission, here is a summary of our conversation. If you support this points system, you might want to read all this and then email Kevin yourself. kevinelliott@clearchannel.com

[Vernon]
1) Change the ROC so that somebody cannot just show up for that one race and win a National Championship. That completely belittles the whole concept of being a National Champion. I suggest adopting the following proposal, originally put forth by Dafan Zhang on the CCS BBS.

Award each ROC entrant points based on their best regional standing in that class. Use the same schedule for points as is paid for a sprint race. I.e. 65 points for first (the regional class champ) down to 1 point for 50th.

Award the ROC finishers points as normal.

The National Champ is whoever has the most points. Ties go to whoever finishes higher in the ROC. All the Regional Champs would come in with 65 points (in that class). If one of them wins the race, then they have a total of 130 points and are the new National Champ.

[Elliott]
This unfairly penalizes someone who starts late in the season, especially the Amateurs who will be forced to move up to expert after a good finish at the ROC.(They would never have a chance at an Amateur title.) You wouldn't have the 30-40 entrants in the class either that are needed to make the event a financial success for the speedway. (Be honest, if you knew that even if you won the race at Daytona, a guy could take the National Title from you just by being in the top ten, would you bother to show up? You would have to be dependant on twenty other guys being fast enough to help you, and on the track road racing is not really a team sport.)

[Vernon]
Regarding the specifics of what you said:

- I think the points system is more fair (by far) than having somebody show up for that one race (out of the whole season) and be the National Champ. That just shows that they were the fastest that one day, at that one track. Especially when you consider how different that track is than the ones we normally race at, it makes the concept of CCS National Champ pretty meaningless (compared to what being a National Champ *should* mean).

[Elliott]
A quick look at one class that Rapp won.. The points formula means that if you weren't ranked regionally as a # 1 you couldn't win on your effort alone. That system means that Jessie Janisch, who finished second to Steve Rapp in CCS SportBike, wouldn't have won the title either because his 15th place ranking would have made him 3-4 in the points and the fourth place rider Jeff Purk would have one because his regional "points" ranking of # 2 gave him a better finish. How fair is that in this run-off format?  Jessie came from several rows back to take second and deserved it, but the "points" would have screwed him.  No one wants to have to have a slide rule to figure out who the national champion is, just as in any other sportsman run-off event, the winner is the champion.

... continued ...

[StuartV666]

[Vernon]
- There *might* be fewer entries, but I doubt it. I think most guys that show up, that weren't in the top 5 in their region, don't really think they have a shot at the championship anyway. So having a smaller chance, because of the points, wouldn't deter them. I have raced the ROC in '91, '92, and '93 and none of those times did I ever think I had any chance whatsoever at winning the race. And: winning a race at Daytona is still winning a race at Daytona. There would be the same glory in that as there is now. EXACTLY, the same, in fact. Race winners should get a trophy just like any other race. They just might not be the National Champ.

[Elliott]
True, there might not be fewer entries, but how many of the Meyers,  Jimenez's, Shaw's who really were contenders would have not entered a race they mathematically couldn't win? As for the difference in wins at Daytona, ask Donnie Unger the difference in glory between "A" race win at Daytona and "A" National Championship. There is a big difference.

[Vernon]
So, if you're still not feeling persuaded, then perhaps you'll answer this: How do you feel about somebody (take Steve Rapp, for example) showing up for, basically, one race (the ROC) and being crowned National Champ, when he didn't really participate in the CCS Regionals all year? I can say from the BBS that a lot of CCS competitors don't like it. If you don't like it either, then what is CCS going to do to prevent that in the future? As long as that's allowed to continue, I think that's more of a damper on Expert entries than a points system would be.

[Elliott]
While Steve Rapp's normal display of  talent is at AMA events, do not forget that he also scored points in CCS regional competition in 2003 (Southeast-Mid-Atlantic-Florida regions for sure), thus any criteria short of an AMA PRO style mandate that barred him from competition would allow him into the event. Yes your "point" system would have taken the wins away, but it would have also struck down Marco Martinez (who regularly raced AMA SuperStock this season) in second place in Expert GTO because he only finished 5th in the Florida points.

- Stu

[r6_philly]

Thanks Stu, for crediting my idea. I have been drafting my thoughts to send to Kevin, and I will do so tomorrow.

One more time, I believe National Championship should be awarded to regular series participants. If they want to use the ROC as a run-off and one-off winner event, then untie it with the points system. Grid based on entry or qualifying, not on points. The marketing material mentions that ROC is something all CCS racers look forward to all year, and a chance to claim national glory after a hard season of racing. If so, then the regular season should be considered in awarding the national championships. They could just call it the CCS national run-off winner. It does not deserve the title of a"national champion". A winner for sure, a champion, no.

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

I sent this e-mail to Kevin.  Comments?
--------------------------------------------------
I agree with the proposal to decide the National Champion in each class by awarding points per finishing position in the region and adding them to points earned in the actual Daytona runoff, with the on-track finishing order at the ROC deciding the tie breaker.  I think that it is wrong for racers to win the National Championship if they have not regularly participated in the series throughout the season.

I do see your point when you say that only a few riders would have a shot at the championship.  Therefore, I have a different proposal.  What if you took your best nine finishes in a given class, and averaged them to determine your 50% score that would be averaged to your race finish at Daytona?  This would at least reward those who race the whole season as a CCS racer, and prevent the pros from taking the titles without actually competing in the series throughout the summer.

Regardless of what you decide, something needs to be done to keep "one-shot" racers from taking the title.  If neither of these proposals works for you, then something else needs to be figured out.  The current system is not acceptable.
(Please note that either of these systems would possibly have cost me my fifth place at the ROC in 2002, but I support them anyway.)
"K3" Chris Onwiler
Great Lakes #333 Expert

[StuartV666]

(Please note that either of these systems would possibly have cost me my fifth place at the ROC in 2002, but I support them anyway.)
"K3" Chris Onwiler
Great Lakes #333 Expert

No, you still would have had 5th in the ROC. What you might not have had is the dubious distinction of 5th in the National Championship. Currently, nothing after 1st gets any recognition anyway, so that doesn't seem like much of a loss.

[SliderPhoto]

People who start mid season will be unfairly penalized? If you start mid season, should you really expect to win a championship?

[r6_philly]

People who start mid season will be unfairly penalized? If you start mid season, should you really expect to win a championship?

thats what I emailed Kevin. If some guy starts mid-season, would you expect him to win a regional championship? Maybe we should have a run-off for regional champs too?

Another point, EX's are not going to start mid-season. Only amateurs.

And shouldn't more MEANING be associated with the word "champion"?

Please email Kevin and express your views. I really would like to see this changed or modified so only a top running, regular, season-long racer wins the national championship. It should be the reward for a consistent, fast, and persisting racer, like ALL championship promotes.

[WebCrush]

I can express Kevin's view for ya right here:

"why make any rule to prevent anyone from entering the races, we want ALL your money, large bills preferable"