38 on Atlanta Entry List

This is the one downside to the charter system. But, it leaves a big opening for anyone looking to field a new team.
 
Who cares we lost some field fillers....start and park was a big joke now its this...only surprise is Bk down to one car.
 
Think there were some 39 car fields last year as well.
 
Greg said:
Think there were some 39 car fields last year as well.
Click to expand...
It was mostly at the start year, and the west coast swing, but for the most part, it was 40 cars for the majority of the races IIRC
 
Speedbowl14 said:
Oh boy... here we go... http://www.jayski.com/stats/2017/pdfs/02ams2017entry.pdf

42 trying to qualify for Daytona was a bad sign. Last year only 39 started at Atlanta but things recovered to full fields. Hoping this isn't a trend this year :confused:
Click to expand...
This is very common, the Dayton 500 always has the most teams entered, this is nothing new

And keep in mind that one of those 42 cars that was just a one race deal for Mikey and his final race.
 
29-4 said:
Cmon Aunty, admit I was right on this one.
Click to expand...

From a financial point of view, I don't understand why anyone without a charter shows up at all.

I do understand why they want to be there for many other reasons. Their numbers will go up and down as the season wears on as they have every other year.

Realistically, the racing is unaffected either way. Just my opinion, of course.
 
aunty dive said:
From a financial point of view, I don't understand why anyone without a charter shows up at all.

I do understand why they want to be there for many other reasons. Their numbers will go up and down as the season wears on as they have every other year.

Realistically, the racing is unaffected either way. Just my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should talk to the Wood Brothers who showed up at every race last year without a charter to get a better understanding.
 
MRM said:
This is the one downside to the charter system. But, it leaves a big opening for anyone looking to field a new team.
Click to expand...

Not really. The amount of money you get running an Open team is absolutely pathetic compared to the amount you get running a Chartered team, somewhere around 35% of the amount for similar finishing positions. The Wood Brothers even said that they were strained even after top ten finishes last year because there was so much less money for them than if they'd done so as a Chartered team. Therefore, unless you have a REALLY loyal sponsor (good luck finding one of those in this climate), you're not going to get very far running an Open team, something which was borne out by the lack of mid-season start-ups last year, even w/ the early short fields, or this year by decisions like BK not entering the 83 or CS-TMG not entering the 30 (both Open teammates to their Chartered entries) at Atlanta.

Of course, Lord Kauffman has made it difficult for the average fan to verify the purse payouts easily on his or her own by forcing Bumbling Brian to hide the prize money on the post-race reports. So, one may choose to take my points w/ a grain of salt if they wish.

Simple Fan said:
No big deal. Only really need the 36 charter teams in my opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

It's that attitude that is going to strangle NASCAR completely. We need the small teams so that when the big teams falter or fold, there's someone to fill the gap. And it's not like any of the big owners are getting any younger, either...

jws926 said:
It was mostly at the start year, and the west coast swing, but for the most part, it was 40 cars for the majority of the races IIRC
Click to expand...

It was, once Premium re-activated their second entry. But they had several withdrawals late in the season (ironically, most of them by Premium, pulling their early season entry, which may have affected their previous Charter if my understanding of how leases work is correct) that would've brought the number back down if there hadn't been other entries from other teams (mostly BK's 93).

Clutch said:
Leased it. OK thanks.
I wondered what the going rate for a charter was. Clearly they have looked at buying but the cost must still be prohibitive.
Click to expand...

I heard it was mid 7-figures to buy, about 2 million to lease (based on the Premium-to-HScott lease last year). And they did look at buying an MWR charter last year but got priced out by SHR and JGR.
 
Last edited:
Roman Nodonyet said:
The amount of money you get running an Open team is absolutely pathetic compared to the amount you get running a Chartered team, somewhere around 35% of the amount for similar finishing positions. .....

... I heard it was mid 7-figures to buy, about 2 million to lease (based on the Premium-to-HScott lease last year). And they did look at buying an MWR charter last year but got priced out by SHR and JGR.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the payoff percentage difference is ... only that it's less for non-charters.

2 million seems rather high for a one year lease for a charter that sold for 5 last year. Do you have a source for these figures?
 
aunty dive said:
I have no idea what the payoff percentage difference is ... only that it's less for non-charters.

2 million seems rather high for a one year lease for a charter that sold for 5 last year. Do you have a source for these figures?
Click to expand...

There was a Tweet by Lee Spencer mentioning 1.6 million as the figure for the lease. I can't find the Tweet directly because Jayski didn't link to it (only to Spencer's Twitter feed), but if you go this page, you can see the post mentioning the Tweet a few articles down.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
There was a Tweet by Lee Spencer mentioning 1.6 million as the figure for the lease. I can't find the Tweet directly because Jayski didn't link to it (only to Spencer's Twitter feed), but if you go this page, you can see the post mentioning the Tweet a few articles down.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's a different transaction ... conducted a year ago but it's a good baseline indicator.

What about the 35% payout number? Anything on that? Seems very low.
 
Beard Motorsports and the 75 team tweeted stay tuned after their 11th place run, so they may run more races
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Right here, from ESPN itself.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That figure applies to the fixed per race payment that everybody gets. Non-charters get the same payment as the charters for finishing position payments.

It's easy to see how the accountant at Wood Bros. Racing figured out how much they should pay for a 1 year lease.
 
The whole "who cares" attitude from several posters here is kinda scary. When you go from 48-52 cars competing for 43 spots on a weekly basis to not even being able to get 40 cars to the track when they're GUARANTEED to start the race...it really shows how unhealthy the sport's economics are. I know that's beating a dead horse, I know, I know. But other indicators of the sport's health- ratings, attendance, TV money, sponsor money are hidden from us to prevent us from seeing the truth, and make us believe the NASCAR fodder. They can't deny the facts on the entry lists though- that's why they're so important, imo. The whole "oh the ratings are great at my house" and the "who cares about attendance- I wasn't there" and the "who cares who sponsors who's car" audience also makes up some of the most passionate RACE fans on the board, that care about the pure, wholesome, RACING, which is great. But when you lose 1/4+ of the entries in a 10 year period, how much longer will it before the sport's economics DO impact the racing? That point is coming very soon. Very soon.
 
Speedbowl14 said:
The whole "who cares" attitude from several posters here is kinda scary. When you go from 48-52 cars competing for 43 spots on a weekly basis to not even being able to get 40 cars to the track when they're GUARANTEED to start the race...it really shows how unhealthy the sport's economics are. I know that's beating a dead horse, I know, I know. But other indicators of the sport's health- ratings, attendance, TV money, sponsor money are hidden from us to prevent us from seeing the truth, and make us believe the NASCAR fodder. They can't deny the facts on the entry lists though- that's why they're so important, imo. The whole "oh the ratings are great at my house" and the "who cares about attendance- I wasn't there" and the "who cares who sponsors who's car" audience also makes up some of the most passionate RACE fans on the board, that care about the pure, wholesome, RACING, which is great. But when you lose 1/4+ of the entries in a 10 year period, how much longer will it before the sport's economics DO impact the racing? That point is coming very soon. Very soon.
Click to expand...

What is scary is that the most healthy thing within Nascar now is the broadcast contracts. Some folks point to charters being a good thing but they are not owned by the teams but instead are doled out until the broadcast contracts disappear. Sure there are some people that put their collective heads in the sand and behave as if Nascar has no issues but I also think there are many people that are doing everything they can to support the series and are tired of hearing and thinking about all the bad news.
 
29-4 said:
Many of you told me the charter system would not lead to short fields. Time to eat those words.
Click to expand...
Prove the cause and effect, please. Preferably, please include statements from owners saying the charters are why they are not entering, and not merely due to the limited field size.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Spencer said:
Prove the cause and effect, please. Preferably, please include statements from owners saying the charters are why they are not entering, and not merely due to the limited field size.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

20 years of no short fields.

<Charter Implementation>

Short fields.

In the absence of data, one must sometimes rely on common sense.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Prove the cause and effect, please. Preferably, please include statements from owners saying the charters are why they are not entering, and not merely due to the limited field size.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Mr. 4 has gotten into the habit of ignoring his education and the tenets of his profession in order to continue complaining about NASCAR.
 
aunty dive said:
Mr. 4 has gotten into the habit of ignoring his education and the tenets of his profession in order to continue complaining about NASCAR.
Click to expand...

:D I'll admit, I lol'd. I don't hold my comments here to the standard of my work. However, I think supposition and correlations are appropriate for a message board.
 
29-4 said:
:D I'll admit, I lol'd. I don't hold my comments here to the standard of my work. However, I think supposition and correlations are appropriate for a message board.
Click to expand...
You call it supposition and correlations (conjecture would be more accurate) that don't meet your 8-5 Monday to Friday standards.

I call it what it is ... confirmation bias.
 
29-4 said:
:D I'll admit, I lol'd. I don't hold my comments here to the standard of my work. However, I think supposition and correlations are appropriate for a message board.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how the charters shake out in a few years when teams have to use them or turn them in. It is possible that only the chartered teams will participate in the races and some of them will be start and park.
 
Oh the noesz, two cars that will be out before the end of the first stage won't be there.... NASCAR is dead, DEAD!!!1!!
cdsulhoff.gif
cdsulhoff.gif
cdsulhoff.gif
cdsulhoff.gif
cdsulhoff.gif
 
29-4 said:
20 years of no short fields.

<Charter Implementation>

Short fields.

In the absence of data, one must sometimes rely on common sense.
Click to expand...
20 years of no short fields.

<Reduction of field size from 43 to 40, reducing chances of making the field>

Short fields.

Prior to the charters, the top 35 in owner points were guaranteed starting spots. Explain how increasing the number of guaranteed starters by 1 has more of an effect than cutting the overall field size by 3.

In the absence of data, one can reach theories but not facts.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
20 years of no short fields.

<Reduction of field size from 43 to 40, reducing chances of making the field>

Short fields.

Prior to the charters, the top 35 in owner points were guaranteed starting spots. Explain how increasing the number of guaranteed starters by 1 has more of an effect than cutting the overall field size by 3.

In the absence of data, one can reach theories but not facts.
Click to expand...
You seem resistant to Global Warming as being the cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom