44 On Entry List For The Rock

T

TonyB

Guest
Entry List for Rockingham

Note this is from the press release NASCAR sends out and isn't always 100% correct versus the teams that actually show up.

In addition to the regulars the entry list has:
Joe Rutman in an #09 Dodge (why wouldn't it be Johnny Benson?)
Larry Foty in a #14 Dodge (thought they had previously announced they wouldn't be here?)
Larry Gunselamn in a #39 Chevy (being fielded by Jay Robinson)
Carl Long in a #46 Dodge
Andy Belmont in a #59 Pontiac
Kirk Shlemerdine in a #72 Ford
Andy Hillenberg in a #90 Ford

---

Not on the list are
#1 John Andretti (who I thought was going to be here)
#7 Jimmy Spencer
#74 Tony Raines (who I thought had annoucned they would be here.)
 
that makes me sick 5 or 6 of those will make the field, nothing but rollin wrecks, but guess it serves them right, greed SOB's are going to have to let go of some of their money to get these cars to the track.
 
I don't know why they have to have 43 cars anyway? Is that a rule that's in the rule book? If so they can change it because they change them all the time.
 
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 17 2004, 09:12 AM
could be wrong but i think the TV contract states they have to start 43 cars or lose big $$$$$$
Click to expand...
It seems that I do remember something about that now that you metion it.
 
I've seen that mentioned about a billion times, but NASCAR says it isn't true and I've yet to see one crdible source that it is in the TV contract.

Do the TV guys really care about the 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, and 43rd car anyway?

43 is no magic number. It used to be 42 not that long ago. Heck as recently as 1996, NASCAR only allowed 36 cars on the short tracks.

The field is full for Rockingham. It isn't full of full-time teams, but that also is a very recent developement in NASCAR. The tradition of part-time teams is very long standing.

In 1990 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 5 (of 29) races.
In 1995 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 9 (of 31) races.
In 2000 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 13 (of 34) races.
In 2001 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 24 (of 36) races.
In 2002 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 10 (of 36) races.
In 2003 the 43rd place driver in the year end standings started 11 (of 36) races.



Now let's look at hihgest ranking driver who started half or less of the races:
1975 - Bruce Jacobi 25th (15 of 30)
1980 - Kyle Petty 28th (15 of 31)
1985 - Benny Parsons 29th ( 14 of 28)
1990 - Jack Pennignton 34th (14 of 29)
1995 - Randy Lajoie 40th (14 of 31)
2000 - Kenny Irwin Jr 42nd (17 of 34) Note Robby Gordon finsihed 43rd with 17 of 34 as well.
2001 - Robby Gordon 44th (17 of 36)
2002 - Geoffrrey Bodine 43rd (10 of 36)
2003 - Jack Sprague 40th (18 of 36)

I'd rather use owner's points and see how many races each car attempted each year, but that isn't readily available data going back more than a couple of years.

I just thought of another way to look at this (number of drivers who started 75%+ of races in a given year). But I don't have time to dig up the numbers on that at the moment. Perhaps later today.
 
Hey Tony, what does the "B" stand for? "B"ook of knowledge.
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Feb 17 2004, 11:07 AM
Hey Tony, what does the "B" stand for? "B"ook of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Depends on who you are talking to...

My wife says it stands for Bonehead
Some of my more spirited adversaries Bombastic
Some of my less friendly adveraries Blithering Idiot

My dad says it stands for Blalock (my last name)

I've been TonyB since little leageue baseball. There were two Tonys on the team. TonyB and TonyH. It stuck from there.

I don't know this stuff off the top of my head, I just look it up when it strikes me to do so....

One of my teachers in High School once said somethign to the effect of "In the sign of intelligence isn't knowing at lot, it's knowing where to look a lot up." Okay, not very elligent, but I took it to heart.
 
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 17 2004, 02:25 PM
that makes me sick 5 or 6 of those will make the field, nothing but rollin wrecks, but guess it serves them right, greed SOB's are going to have to let go of some of their money to get these cars to the track.
Click to expand...
It isn't there is a required number of entries needed to fill the field.
It is a limit on having too many cars in the field.

It hasn't been that long ago when fifty or more cars were in a race. That was when it became necessary to impose a limit. In the nineties, field size at tracks of less than one mile were limited to 36 cars, and tracks one-half mile, to 32 cars.
Teams with full time sponsors were screaming they showed up every week and attempted to qualify and by NASCAR limiting the number of entries on the starting grid at short tracks, the sponsors and teams who participated every week were being penalized.
This hurt everyone in the sport and brought the stipulation of 42 cars at every race regardless of track size.

If greed enters the equation, it is because a team not a top contender yet having a full time sponsor and making an effort to participate in every race, faced the possibility of being left out due to limited field size at short tracks.

The thought then turned to the "what if" scenario and the question of "what if" a high profile team with a major corporate sponsor should be eliminated from a short-field. The field size was set at 42 cars with the champions provisional added as a "honorary"(?) entry at every track, regardless of size.

Greed had nothing to do with it then and nothing to do with it now.
If anything, fairness is the issue.
 
A think the whole point here isn't the maximum number allowed, but rather how much of the field is full-time fully sponsored teams. And that is a relatively recent developement. Fields used to frequently contain cars doing very limited schedules and it wasn't that long ago either...
 
# of drivers that started at 75% of the schedule by year...

1975 - 19
1980 - 19
1985 - 25
1990 - 30
1994 - 34
1995 - 36
1996 - 38
1997 - 37
1998 - 37
1999 - 38
2000 - 38
2001 - 38
2001 - 37
2003 - 38


If you really want the other years from 1975 forward, I did them as well, just didn't want to take to the time to type 'em in.
 
well answer this whizzer,
why in the world would (as rumor has it) nascar pay these teams 30 to 40,000. 00 to show up it there wasn't some clause in the TV contract stipulating 43 cars start.
 
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 17 2004, 01:18 PM
well answer this whizzer,
why in the world would (as rumor has it) nascar pay these teams 30 to 40,000. 00 to show up it there wasn't some clause in the TV contract stipulating 43 cars start.

Last year 43rd place at the Rock paid $44,922. I think that's pretty significant money for some of the teams that are coming out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe it was me that was disputing that was in the contract and not whizzer.

"Show money" is also something that isn't new to NASCAR. And it has been used long before the new TV contract was around.

Again, point me to a credible soruce that says it is in the contract. It simply doesn't make any sense that it would be in there as I don't see the TV guys having an interest in the 40th - 43rd cars period.

Also, can you post a link to a credible source that says NASCAR is paying "show money?" Not disputing that they are, I just haven't seen that from a credible source.
 
i am computer stupid don't know how to post links saw it on jayski, his link was winston/salem newspaper.
my question is why would they want field fillers if it wasn't in their (nascar's) best intrest, i.e; $$$$$$$ why not just run 36 or 38
 
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 17 2004, 01:56 PM
i am computer stupid don't know how to post links saw it on jayski, his link was winston/salem newspaper.
my question is why would they want field fillers if it wasn't in their (nascar's) best intrest, i.e; $$$$$$$ why not just run 36 or 38
Click to expand...
First rule of following NASCAR on the internet is ignore anythign Mike "Malarkey" Mulhern (Winston-Salem Journal) says. He's almost always wrong. Best idea is to assume the opposite.

Seriously, so much of the BS he has reported has turned out wrong, that I no longer consider him to be anywhere near a credible soruce.

And, posting a link here is very simple. Simply ahve the page you want to link to open in another window. Highlight and copy the URL. Then to poste it here hit the button that says http:// at the top of the posting window. A box will pop up and paste the url into it. Then you give what ever name you want, and then click ok. You are done.
 
Here's some of things that Mulhern has reported

8-5-2003 Mulhern reported that Robin Pemberton would leave Ford and return to Yates.
-- Pemberton is still with Ford.

8-23-2003 Mulhern reported that Mike Helton was leaving NASCAR to take over DEI.
-- Helton is still with NASCAR.

8-25-2003 Mulhern reported that Sam Hornish was headed to Hendrick Motorsports.
-- Nope

Okay. I just browsed a few and didn't include any that were bogus reports about sponsorship going here or there beacuse they were coached as speculation is, etc.
 
Originally posted by TonyB@Feb 17 2004, 06:44 AM


In addition to the regulars the entry list has:
Joe Rutman in an #09 Dodge (why wouldn't it be Johnny Benson?)
Click to expand...
They way I understand it is that James Finch promised Joe a ride for a race if he would test the 09 in the daytona test, which he did.
 
There has to be something with the 43 car field and the TV package. Just look at Pocono last year. On Fri. only 42 cars show up, but somebody (maybe Long or Shepard I can't remember) shows up and only ran about 7 laps and put it on the trailer. There were 2 or 3 races like that last year.
 
Originally posted by Tabasco@Feb 17 2004, 08:58 PM
There has to be something with the 43 car field and the TV package. Just look at Pocono last year. On Fri. only 42 cars show up, but somebody (maybe Long or Shepard I can't remember) shows up and only ran about 7 laps and put it on the trailer. There were 2 or 3 races like that last year.
Click to expand...
Let me draw you a hypothetical situation....

Let's say you already own a Cup car (not a good one, but simply that meets the technical requirements enough to pass inspection.)

Now let's say that you learn that only 42 cars are entered in a race. 43rd palce pays 35,000. You can go to the race, qualify, park it after a few laps, at of cost of $10 - 15,000.

Would you show up?
 
The UNIQUE cost in a situation like that would be the inspection fee, tires, fuel, and crew (and you bet it would be a small one.)

Not sure that $10-15, 000 is realistic, but I think you get the point that these teams could well turn a profit off of last place money.
 
Is there anyway we can find out how much it costs for sure I have always been curious about that.
 
Cost is going to very to a certain extent. I'm sure I could dig up the inspection fee and I know the cost of tires is posted arounf somewhere. Not sure what the cost of fuel is, but I also vaguely remember reading that in a story somewhere.

The real variable would be the crew cost. Do you know enough guys that would come down for the weekend that already own a firesuit and helmet?
So they already have NASCAR hard cards? Those have a cost as well.
You have to have a spotter before you can get on the track. I don't think you technically have to have a pit crew, so you could just turn 5-10 laps, develope a handling problem and park it.

Realize we are talking a hypothetical based on UNIQUE cost. This assumes the car is already build and that cost has already been paid.

If anyone wants to start the reaserch, go for it...

I have to go finish up Wednesday's articles for ERaceFans.com.
 
It wouldn't take much for Nascar to call and say "Get a car up here" either. If Fox put the 42 car field in the contract, you better belive Mike will have a car on the way by Happy Hour. ;) IF the clause is there.
 
Well, I think we got a little off topic here....

As I stated early, "show money" is a long standing tool NASCAR has used to attract teams to races, and that was long before the new TV contract. If they are paying teams to show up and try to qualify, then it is something they've done for years and years in the past.

Whether or not there is a full field requirement in the TV contract is something we will never know unless one of the three parties chooses to tell us. I'd still like someone to explain the motive of not just 1 but 2 television networks to indenpendently put such a clause in the contract.
 
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 17 2004, 06:18 PM
well answer this whizzer,
why in the world would (as rumor has it) nascar pay these teams 30 to 40,000. 00 to show up it there wasn't  some clause in the TV contract stipulating 43 cars start.
Click to expand...
I doubt NASCAR as the sanctioning body pays any team to enter a race and if there is a requirement in the television contract, the only place I have seen it is in speculative comments from fans, never from a reliable source.

The practice of paying teams to show up for a race is not hot news. It has been the norm from the early 1900's, long before the days of NASCAR. And it isn't usually the sanctioning body that pay the show-up monies but the promoters or track owners.

Looking at it from another prospective, think about this:

A 43rd place finish in the 1959 Daytona 500 paid $100.

A 43rd place finish in the 1969 Daytona 500 paid $1,160.

A 41st place finish in the 1979 Daytona 500 paid $1,930

A 42nd place finish in the 1989 Daytona 500 paid $11,800.

A 43rd place finish in the 1999 Daytona 500 paid $91,751.

In the 2004 Daytona 500, the 43rd place car was paid $216,997.

The idea being, whether there is or is not a requirement for the number of entries in the stating field of any race, the increase in purse monies from television contracts, and an increase of 231% in the last five years for finishing last, it is not necessary for NASCAR to pay a "show-up" fee.

IF...................... the report is true, why would NASCAR pay a team $30,000 to show up??? Adding the reported $30,000 "show-up" money to the purse money awarded last place finisher at the fall, 2003 Rockingham race which paid $45,170, would net the last place car around $75,000.

A team had to finish in or near twentieth place in the same race to secure a like amount.

The purse monies are as large today because of television contracts.
It is not practical or good business for NASCAR to pay a team $30,000 to show when that team can make more by qualifying and running two laps and there are provisions in place for cars running to slowly during a race, so............................................ the question is, why do fans feel this is a negative for NASCAR to allow a practice as old as auto racing itself ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom