I don't really know what to call this rant!

[Harry P.]

I think the one big change NASCAR could make that would really breathe new life into the sport is to run road courses... you know, turning left and right...

[Monte's Motors]

  On 1/8/2011 at 4:16 AM, Harry P. said:

I think the one big change NASCAR could make that would really breathe new life into the sport is to run road courses... you know, turning left and right...

With all do respect Harry, watching those road course races are like watching a grocery store parking lot.

[James Flowers]

  On 1/7/2011 at 11:15 PM, Mark Brown said:

The big thing that has greatly contributed to the sport losing its appeal to me, and has been mentioned previously, has been the enormous influx of BIG corporate sponsors.

These corporations demand that "their" driver be a constant spokesperson for their company, and are far more interested in the image that that driver portrays when representing their company than they are with the driver winning. IMO, of course.

The other effect of the big companies getting involved has been racing budgets that dwarf the budgets that teams - even the big ones - had at their disposal two decades ago. This led to runaway spending and the runaway testing that then created to the whole "team concept" to get around testing limits. The upshot of this has been team domination (as in Jimmy Johnson and Jeff Gordon before him) by the team with the most money to spend.

The other big change that I've seen, since I started following the sport closely in the late '80s, has been NASCAR's eagerness to morph the sport into something that would have much wider appeal, without regard for the longtime fans that made them successful in the first place. They saw an expansion of their audience base back in the mid '90s and couldn't get enough of that, and started looking for ways to keep the new fans coming, with misguided ideas (again, IMO) like the Chase and the cookie cutter 1.5 mile snoozefest tracks. As the general interest in the sport from new fans naturally peaked and then waned, and NASCAR's attempts to keep bringing in new fans weren't meeting with nearly as much success, at the same time they had alienated a large chunk of their core fanbase. They should have realized that non-hardcore fans would come and go, moving on to the next big thing, and that it was fundamental that they keep their core fans happy. I think that what you're seeing now, with flagging attendance and television ratings, is the natural process of the "sport of the month" fans moving on and the core fans having gotten tired of stuff like the Chase and the domination by one or two or three teams and boring racetracks.

I'm not even sure that a guy like Earnhardt could make it in today's environment - I doubt he'd be much interested in playing up to the corporate image that would be required of him. The closest thing we have now is Kyle Busch and Tony Stewart, though Smoke has really toned it down, and so has Kyle. I expect that both their sponsors have had long heart-to-hearts with both of them, or in Busch's case, with Coach Gibbs.

I don't care what they drive and I don't even lose sleep about what the cars look like - I just wish they would:

1. Pull the plug on the big multicar teams

2. Put a cap on budgets to level the playing field and let independants back in the sport

3. File the Chase under "Bad Ideas"

4. Take the gloves off the drivers and let them be race drivers and not GQ-ready corporate figureheads

5. Bring back more short tracks and even road courses

Again, just one ex-fan's opinions.....

I agree with you. One car, one owner and one driver only. There are 43 cars out on the track and you only here about a very few cars or drivers. The rest are only fillers to fill the field and they do not count because they are the poor teams with limited budgets.Those are the guys that are the heart and soul of what racing is all about to me.

[Chuck Most]

I'd like to see the field more evenly split, as well. Yes, the cars aren't real "Chevrolets", "Fords", etc., but if there were a more equal number of each 'make', I'd really be interested to see if Chevrolet was so dominant in the series.

[ra7c7er]

I would like to see them get rid of the auto qualifying for the top 35 in points. Also I think they should get rid of the provisional. If you want real close racing take the fastest cars not the top cars in points. That would make the points race closer and give smaller teams a chance at being in more races.

Also two car teams max is the way it should be. Spread the teams and sponsors out allowing for everyone to have more quality cars. Honestly their really are only three teams that feed parts and equipment to all the lower teams anyway so it really is just a three or four team league.

[Zoom Zoom]

  On 1/8/2011 at 4:16 AM, Harry P. said:

I think the one big change NASCAR could make that would really breathe new life into the sport is to run road courses... you know, turning left and right...

They run two per year; Infineon/Sears Point, and Watkins Glen. New life? Hardly. The cars look silly and uncomfortable on those courses and there is no way that sports car fans are going to flock to NASCAR regardless.

[slantasaurus]

In this whole discusson I find it interesting that the people making the most complainnts and sugestions on how to "fix" things are the same people who say that they don't watch Nascar.........

[Modelmartin]

You know what? It is what it is. All forms of racing have changed over time. In the 50s you could run a Crosley Hotshot at the 24 Hours of Lemans and someone did! In drag racing a couple of guys who ran a service station could run a junior fuel dragster. Art Arfons could build a 500 MPH LSR car in his barn for $10,000. Racing was way more accessible in the "golden" past. Competition changed all of that. Everyone wanted to go faster and win more and the people who could marshall more resources were able to win and dominate and the underfunded lost out and dropped out. I remember the huge number of drag cars converted to street rods and street machines in the 70s.

Nostalgia is OK for a little bit but I think it becomes unhealthy if we spend too much time whining about how "bad" things are today and how "golden" things were in the past. Looking forward is much healthier. The past is gone!

[Harry P.]

  On 1/8/2011 at 1:48 PM, slantasaurus said:

In this whole discusson I find it interesting that the people making the most complainnts and sugestions on how to "fix" things are the same people who say that they don't watch Nascar.........

Well, obviously! Those that do watch NASCAR probably like it the way it is, that's why they're watching! It's the people who don't like NASCAR the way it is and don't watch it that would be the ones with ideas on how to "fix" it.

[highway]

  On 1/8/2011 at 5:27 AM, James Flowers said:

I agree with you. One car, one owner and one driver only. There are 43 cars out on the track and you only here about a very few cars or drivers. The rest are only fillers to fill the field and they do not count because they are the poor teams with limited budgets.Those are the guys that are the heart and soul of what racing is all about to me.

James, I disagree with you on the one car teams, every other form of motorsports I watch has multicar teams, so why shouldn't NASCAR? Formula 1 is nothing but multicar teams, each team in the garage HAS to field TWO cars. Indy Racing also has multicar teams, Penske Racing and Andretti are just a couple quickies off the top of my head who field three or four cars each, and in NHRA you have John Force Racing who fields at least three and I think has four cars in his team, but I don't see anyone complaining these racing series need team limits. As it is per NASCAR rules, any team cannot have more than four cars per team. I also notice most of the multicar teams mentioned everyone seems to bring up are Hendrick Motorsports cars, specifically the 24 and 48 teams. Does anyone realize those cars are also owned by Jeff Gordon? Yes, they are Hendrick cars, but Jeff Gordon owns part of the 24 car he drives as well as Jimmie Johnson's Lowes car. If you don't believe me, look at even a cheap Walmart diecast and read the licensing info on the package, the 24 and 48 licensing is copyright of BOTH Hendrick Motorsports AND JG Motorsports, and the same is true for at least Dale Jr.'s 88 and I believe Mark Martin's 5 car, those cars are both Dale Jr.'s and copyright of JR Motorsports. As for the "poorer" teams, even they have the advantage of big teams, most of those teams buy at least engines and sometimes whole cars from teams like Hendrick or RCR in the case of Chevies, it's just what those teams do with those cars that disgusts me, and also where I agree with you.

I agree with you that the less fortunate teams are the heart and soul of what NASCAR was even in the early and mid 80s, guys that barely have enough money for the car and tires going out and racing. The part nowadays that disgusts me is NASCAR allows these, for lack of a better word for the way I really feel that I can't use here, "wimps" to qualify for the race and within the first five laps they park the car! I see it this way, if you qualify for the race, you should do your best to FINISH the race! If you are going to walk off with even the purse for finishing 43rd, you should at least EARN IT! I don't remember any of the men who made the sport what it is quitting in their leaner days, they stayed and fought for every penny they won. If these less fortunate teams would try a little harder, maybe they could build a better team!

[Jon Cole]

How can road course racing be thought of as a negative? Isn’t turning left AND right the very essence of racing? More skill is required. The car has to be set up for “full†handling.

I wonder if the gripe has something to do with not being to view the entire race at the track for one vantage point?

[wgflatliner]

i don't believe i speak for everybody, buuuut...

[CAL]

  On 1/8/2011 at 5:39 PM, khart said:

I totally agree with you; I find that practice highly distasteful as well. The problem is ... how does NASCAR police something like that?

You just replace the whole thing with V8 Supercars.

[Harry P.]

  On 1/8/2011 at 5:39 PM, khart said:

I totally agree with you; I find that practice highly distasteful as well. The problem is ... how does NASCAR police something like that?

Set a minimum lap requirement. You don't make the minimum, you go home empty handed.

[highway]

  On 1/8/2011 at 5:39 PM, khart said:

I totally agree with you; I find that practice highly distasteful as well. The problem is ... how does NASCAR police something like that?

Thanks, Ken. I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates "start and park" teams! I would say Harry has a nice idea,

  On 1/8/2011 at 6:29 PM, Harry P. said:

Set a minimum lap requirement. You don't make the minimum, you go home empty handed.

but I think something else that could be added is that if you park the car for reasons other than mechanical failure or crash damage too severe to allow the car to continue, the team can be penalized. If you choose to "start and park" before the minimum lap requirement, which could be just like the rule for rain shortened races of more than half the scheduled distance, you don't get the payout for your position and don't bother showing up for qualifying the next race or two. The only two execptions, like I said, would be major crash damage or mechanical failure that can't be readily fixed, like a blown engine. That would prevent the "start and parks" from saying "I left the lights on last night, we only have enough battery power to start the race." I'm sure these teams aren't going to purposely wreck the car or blow an engine just to follow the rule, and who knows, they may get more than last place money!

[sjordan2]

Task #1: Make the Car of Tomorrow the Car of Yesterday.

I don't care if the big-bucks guys like Hendrick can outspend the competition and only the rich would be able to participate, the idea is competition, not just among drivers but among cars and drivers. Isn't that the legacy of the history of motorsports?

Formula One and its variations are far more exciting, are not a poor man's sport, and (while highly regulated) offer more flexibility to the teams.

Regarding NASCAR, if we want a return to the racing-on-the beach days with good ol' boy drivers and shade tree race mechanics prepping the cars, that's covered in other types of racing like dirt track, which is more fun to watch than most other types of racing. (Okay, I know a lot of you are going to chew on that one.)

Edited January 8, 2011 by sjordan2

[James Flowers]

  On 1/8/2011 at 4:36 PM, highway said:

James, I disagree with you on the one car teams, every other form of motorsports I watch has multicar teams, so why shouldn't NASCAR? Formula 1 is nothing but multicar teams, each team in the garage HAS to field TWO cars. Indy Racing also has multicar teams, Penske Racing and Andretti are just a couple quickies off the top of my head who field three or four cars each, and in NHRA you have John Force Racing who fields at least three and I think has four cars in his team, but I don't see anyone complaining these racing series need team limits. As it is per NASCAR rules, any team cannot have more than four cars per team. I also notice most of the multicar teams mentioned everyone seems to bring up are Hendrick Motorsports cars, specifically the 24 and 48 teams. Does anyone realize those cars are also owned by Jeff Gordon? Yes, they are Hendrick cars, but Jeff Gordon owns part of the 24 car he drives as well as Jimmie Johnson's Lowes car. If you don't believe me, look at even a cheap Walmart diecast and read the licensing info on the package, the 24 and 48 licensing is copyright of BOTH Hendrick Motorsports AND JG Motorsports, and the same is true for at least Dale Jr.'s 88 and I believe Mark Martin's 5 car, those cars are both Dale Jr.'s and copyright of JR Motorsports. As for the "poorer" teams, even they have the advantage of big teams, most of those teams buy at least engines and sometimes whole cars from teams like Hendrick or RCR in the case of Chevies, it's just what those teams do with those cars that disgusts me, and also where I agree with you.

I agree with you that the less fortunate teams are the heart and soul of what NASCAR was even in the early and mid 80s, guys that barely have enough money for the car and tires going out and racing. The part nowadays that disgusts me is NASCAR allows these, for lack of a better word for the way I really feel that I can't use here, "wimps" to qualify for the race and within the first five laps they park the car! I see it this way, if you qualify for the race, you should do your best to FINISH the race! If you are going to walk off with even the purse for finishing 43rd, you should at least EARN IT! I don't remember any of the men who made the sport what it is quitting in their leaner days, they stayed and fought for every penny they won. If these less fortunate teams would try a little harder, maybe they could build a better team!

I agree that no one should park a car after just a few laps.You should have to run the full race.They are doing a disservice to the sport and should be paid nothing.If your not there to try and win what is your point of being there? Multicar teams have a much bigger advantage over a one car owner as they have more sponsor money to spend on all aspect of building and maintaining a race car.It shows in the race results.Multicar race car teams win more often than not.The more you own the bigger the piece of the pie you get.Just like any other business.

[Harry P.]

  On 1/8/2011 at 8:18 PM, James Flowers said:

Multicar race car teams win more often than not.The more you own the bigger the piece of the pie you get.Just like any other business.

Other sports have salary caps in place to try and "level the playing field" somewhat between big market teams with $$$ and smaller market teams that otherwise couldn't compete for the best players. Maybe some sort of "spending cap" should be put into place for the NASCAR teams. That way you'd at least give some of the smaller (less $$$ to spend) teams at least a chance of competing more equally.

[ra7c7er]

I don't like start and park teams either but you can't penalize them for not having the money to run full races. If it were not for the start and park teams Nascar wouldn't be filling the field every weekend. Everyone seems to be forgetting that.

[highway]

  On 1/8/2011 at 8:18 PM, James Flowers said:

I agree that no one should park a car after just a few laps.You should have to run the full race.They are doing a disservice to the sport and should be paid nothing.If your not there to try and win what is your point of being there? Multicar teams have a much bigger advantage over a one car owner as they have more sponsor money to spend on all aspect of building and maintaining a race car.It shows in the race results.Multicar race car teams win more often than not.The more you own the bigger the piece of the pie you get.Just like any other business.

Yes, the multicar teams DO have more sponsor money, but if some of the "start and park" teams would at least try, maybe a sponsor would want to be on their car, too? The sponsors are businesses, and they want the bigger piece of the pie by having their name on TV, if even for a few seconds at a time, and the announcer saying "Joe Shmoe just parked the XYZ Company Chevy at lap 5" is nothing any company would want associated with their name.

[ra7c7er]

  On 1/8/2011 at 10:00 PM, highway said:

Yes, the multicar teams DO have more sponsor money, but if some of the "start and park" teams would at least try, maybe a sponsor would want to be on their car, too? The sponsors are businesses, and they want the bigger piece of the pie by having their name on TV, if even for a few seconds at a time, and the announcer saying "Joe Shmoe just parked the XYZ Company Chevy at lap 5" is nothing any company would want associated with their name.

Most of the time the start and park teams are family business sponsored teams. I know several ARCA regulars/part time Nationwide start and parks that are that way. You are not going to see a major sponsor align themselves with a team like that.

[slantasaurus]

This may come as news to you guys who don't watch Nascar, but there IS a "start and park" rule Nascar implemented last season (you whould know that if you watched or listened to my radio show last summer........). The first car to fall out of a race that is not damaged from a crash or mechanical failure is subject to a complete tear down (which cost the car owner money). As has been pointed out, Nascar wants full race fields, some teams don't have money to run full races. Joe Nemecheck would love to run a full race schedual and finish every race but his budget won't let him, he would have to hire more crew members and buy more tires which would put him out of business. In this economy even major race teams are seeking sponserhip from several sources, why do you think Kyle Busch has M&M's on his car one week, Interstate Batteries the next week ??? It's because even these major companies don't want or can't spend the kind of money it takes to fund a team for a full season.

[sjordan2]

  On 1/8/2011 at 10:10 PM, slantasaurus said:

This may come as news to you guys who don't watch Nascar, but there IS a "start and park" rule Nascar implemented last season (you whould know that if you watched or listened to my radio show last summer........). The first car to fall out of a race that is not damaged from a crash or mechanical failure is subject to a complete tear down (which cost the car owner money). As has been pointed out, Nascar wants full race fields, some teams don't have money to run full races. Joe Nemecheck would love to run a full race schedual and finish every race but his budget won't let him, he would have to hire more crew members and buy more tires which would put him out of business. In this economy even major race teams are seeking sponserhip from several sources, why do you think Kyle Busch has M&M's on his car one week, Interstate Batteries the next week ??? It's because even these major companies don't want or can't spend the kind of money it takes to fund a team for a full season.

So why do they field a team in the first place if they can't afford it?

[highway]

  On 1/8/2011 at 11:11 PM, mark taylor said:

I YouTubed my favorite Daytona 500, and with Bill Elliott on the pole, they reported the average qualifying speed at 177mph. Bill ran 210. I don't know if that was a mistake or not, but there still would have been a huge front-to-rear speed differential in the field. You don't see gaps like that today.

That was not a mistake, Mark. Bill Elliott set the fastest time ever in NASCAR. This is an part of the Wikipedia entry on Bill.

"However, Elliott's most lasting accomplishment that year was setting two NASCAR qualifying records, which stand to this day. At Daytona, he set the NASCAR speed record with an average speed of 210.364 miles per hour (338.548 km/h). He broke his own record at Talladega with an average speed of 212.809 miles per hour (342.483 km/h); the previous record he set in 1986 was 209.383 miles per hour (336.969 km/h).[7] In both races, he used a Ford Thunderbird which contained an engine built by his brother Ernie. However, at Talladega, Bobby Allison was spun and went airborne into the catch fence, tearing a large section away and injuring several fans. After this incident, NASCAR mandated the use of restrictor plates at Daytona and Talladega. As a result, Elliott's speed records will likely never be broken. In 1988 Elliott won another six races, including the Southern 500 and the Pepsi Firecracker 400, six poles, and his only Winston Cup Championship."

[Harry P.]

  On 1/8/2011 at 11:11 PM, mark taylor said:

That has always been the argument for freezing the technology...

Yeah, everyone is on the same field as far as technology goes... but Team Big Bucks Team can afford 10x the parts, mechanics and cars that Team Little Guy can... so Team Little Guy is at an inherent disadvantage.

That's why I brought up the salary cap example. If there was no salary cap in baseball, the Yankees would win the World Series every year because their whole team would be comprised of big buck superstar players, while teams like KC and Cincinnati and Pittsburgh might as well not even bother fielding a team. Having some teams at a huge financial advantage knocks the whole element of "competition" out of whack. Same thing is happening with NASCAR. That's why I proposed some sort of "spending cap"... or maybe an "equipment cap" where no team can field more than say, two cars, or have more than X number of people. Obviously the details would have to be worked out, but if you level the playing field as far as $ goes (or at least make things more balanced), maybe Team Little Guy could actually compete with Team Big Bucks.