This week's hot-button debate focuses on venerable Martinsville Speedway, which has been playing host to NASCAR racing since Sept. 25, 1949, when Red Byron beat Lee Petty for the first Strictly Stock victory at the track.
But with all the recent changes in the sport's landscape should Martinsville lose one of its two Nextel Cup races?
Read both sides of the argument and then weigh in with your take:
Should Martinsville lose one of its two Cup races?
YES
Martinsville has to be No. 1 on NASCAR's endangered species list -- especially as efforts continue to build new facilities in such far-flung places as New York, Colorado and the Northwest.
With no way to logically expand the schedule, NASCAR has taken the position of robbing Peter to pay Paul. North Wilkesboro made way for New Hampshire and Texas. Rockingham's races went to California and Texas. Darlington's signature Labor Day event is now in California.
It only stands to reason that Martinsville is next, even though NASCAR officials deny that any talks to that effect have taken place. However, there are several factors that would lead you to logically assume that's a likely prospect.
First, with seating for 65,000, Martinsville is the smallest oval track venue on the circuit. The race last fall was a sellout -- but according to the speedway's own Web site, "good seats remain" for Sunday's race.
Second, the demographics don't lie. Even if you add Greensboro, N.C., and Roanoke, Va., to the mix, you're looking at a combined local population well below 1 million. That doesn't bode well compared to NASCAR's current marketing plan.
In the past decade, NASCAR has made a concerted effort to market its product to potential fans in larger markets: Dallas-Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Los Angeles. It stands to reason that New York, Denver and Seattle are continuations of that strategy.
Third, the same argument for closing the other three tracks exists for Martinsville. Even if you took away one of Martinsville's races, there would be eight points races within 300 miles of Charlotte -- two each at Lowe's, Bristol, Richmond and one apiece at Martinsville and Darlington.
Martinsville is like the classic antique car that you keep protected in a safe place, the one you take for a spin only a couple of times a year before you put it back under wraps. But sometimes you have to trade in that old antique for something sleek and modern, and NASCAR may already be window shopping.
• Mark Aumann, NASCAR.COM
NO
Slicing a race from Martinsville will be the next brick in the wall between NASCAR and its grass-roots fans. It's inevitable, if you're being realistic. But that doesn't mean it's the right move -- and fans and communities must get involved sooner rather than later.
California is a perfect example of how not to expand, because track magnates lose sight of what fans want to see: racing. The sport is saturated with 1.5-mile tracks. NASCAR would be remiss to think another cookie-cutter would be a long-term magnet.
Forget the history of Martinsville; this is the epitome of the sport's history -- the sport's short-track history. Do not think of Martinsville in the sense of the drivers who have competed at the track; the stars also raced at North Wilkesboro and Rockingham. Think of the track as a bastion of not letting go of what brought NASCAR to the masses: the racing.
The 0.526 miles of burnt rubber, gasoline spills, puddles of oil, crumpled sheet metal ... that is irreplaceable. Build a new track, gussy-up the exterior, trademark a catchy slogan, but if the racing -- what fans pay to see (and watch on TV) -- isn't up to par then what do you have?
And since when is bigger -- or newer -- necessarily better? Bristol is a half-mile of heaven on earth. Pocono? It has become a four-hour commercial for NoDoz. California? C'mon, if the spotlight of Tinsletown were 50 miles from Martinsville we wouldn't be having this discussion. But there aren't 160,000 losing their voices at those tracks.
NASCAR didn't become a boon because of marketing; that devil is a by-product of the sport's growth. Everything must be marketed to this group or that demographic. Again, don't lose sight of what brought stock car racing onto the sporting landscape.
While the tickets are pricing many middle-class fans out of the market (an argument for another day), Martinsville and tracks like it cannot take the fall. The sport has to continue to dance with the one that brought it -- and the communities also have to put some skin in the game and make its tracks must-keep venues.
• Duane Cross, NASCAR.COM
But with all the recent changes in the sport's landscape should Martinsville lose one of its two Nextel Cup races?
Read both sides of the argument and then weigh in with your take:
Should Martinsville lose one of its two Cup races?
YES
Martinsville has to be No. 1 on NASCAR's endangered species list -- especially as efforts continue to build new facilities in such far-flung places as New York, Colorado and the Northwest.
With no way to logically expand the schedule, NASCAR has taken the position of robbing Peter to pay Paul. North Wilkesboro made way for New Hampshire and Texas. Rockingham's races went to California and Texas. Darlington's signature Labor Day event is now in California.
It only stands to reason that Martinsville is next, even though NASCAR officials deny that any talks to that effect have taken place. However, there are several factors that would lead you to logically assume that's a likely prospect.
First, with seating for 65,000, Martinsville is the smallest oval track venue on the circuit. The race last fall was a sellout -- but according to the speedway's own Web site, "good seats remain" for Sunday's race.
Second, the demographics don't lie. Even if you add Greensboro, N.C., and Roanoke, Va., to the mix, you're looking at a combined local population well below 1 million. That doesn't bode well compared to NASCAR's current marketing plan.
In the past decade, NASCAR has made a concerted effort to market its product to potential fans in larger markets: Dallas-Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Los Angeles. It stands to reason that New York, Denver and Seattle are continuations of that strategy.
Third, the same argument for closing the other three tracks exists for Martinsville. Even if you took away one of Martinsville's races, there would be eight points races within 300 miles of Charlotte -- two each at Lowe's, Bristol, Richmond and one apiece at Martinsville and Darlington.
Martinsville is like the classic antique car that you keep protected in a safe place, the one you take for a spin only a couple of times a year before you put it back under wraps. But sometimes you have to trade in that old antique for something sleek and modern, and NASCAR may already be window shopping.
• Mark Aumann, NASCAR.COM
NO
Slicing a race from Martinsville will be the next brick in the wall between NASCAR and its grass-roots fans. It's inevitable, if you're being realistic. But that doesn't mean it's the right move -- and fans and communities must get involved sooner rather than later.
California is a perfect example of how not to expand, because track magnates lose sight of what fans want to see: racing. The sport is saturated with 1.5-mile tracks. NASCAR would be remiss to think another cookie-cutter would be a long-term magnet.
Forget the history of Martinsville; this is the epitome of the sport's history -- the sport's short-track history. Do not think of Martinsville in the sense of the drivers who have competed at the track; the stars also raced at North Wilkesboro and Rockingham. Think of the track as a bastion of not letting go of what brought NASCAR to the masses: the racing.
The 0.526 miles of burnt rubber, gasoline spills, puddles of oil, crumpled sheet metal ... that is irreplaceable. Build a new track, gussy-up the exterior, trademark a catchy slogan, but if the racing -- what fans pay to see (and watch on TV) -- isn't up to par then what do you have?
And since when is bigger -- or newer -- necessarily better? Bristol is a half-mile of heaven on earth. Pocono? It has become a four-hour commercial for NoDoz. California? C'mon, if the spotlight of Tinsletown were 50 miles from Martinsville we wouldn't be having this discussion. But there aren't 160,000 losing their voices at those tracks.
NASCAR didn't become a boon because of marketing; that devil is a by-product of the sport's growth. Everything must be marketed to this group or that demographic. Again, don't lose sight of what brought stock car racing onto the sporting landscape.
While the tickets are pricing many middle-class fans out of the market (an argument for another day), Martinsville and tracks like it cannot take the fall. The sport has to continue to dance with the one that brought it -- and the communities also have to put some skin in the game and make its tracks must-keep venues.
• Duane Cross, NASCAR.COM
Maybe they could look into using the rain tires if they go there.
