Moving New Hampshire race to Vegas doesn't address bigger issues

NJJammer said:
Good post from Ricky Craven:

http://www.espn.com/racing/nascar/story/_/id/18913607/was-moving-new-hampshire-race-best-nascar
Click to expand...

It was a good read and some of what I heard Ricky say is that certain gimmicks must be present in NASCAR because the tracks that are in use don't produce racing a lot of people wish to see. I agree that it is not the best thing to take a race away from a unique track and replace it with a track type where the racing can be suspect.

I am not the least bit surprised that NASCAR could not draw from a large area around NH in order to get fans in seats. A large southern city like Atlanta lost a race and the second largest metro area (Los Angeles) lost a date too. Charlotte needs to enhance the fan experience more as its races have had a sharp decline in attendance.
 
My personal take is that NASCAR needs to trim 4-6 races off it's schedule but that won't happen until the current TV contract expires in 2024. Too much product and, I believe, too many cars. The field needs to shrink to 32 cars in the near future. Does any fan really care about those bottom 10 racers/cars? I don't.
 
I have to wonder, with attendance at some tracks in the 75,000 and less range, what constitutes more money to the track, paid admission or TV?

For me the two biggest issues NASCAR has with developing a broader fan base is:
1) Access to the current drivers by the average fan...and I am not talking social media or "canned/staged" appearances at the track. All it takes is a personal connection between a driver and a fan to have a fan for life.
2) Racing used to be inherently dangerous. People went to races to marvel at the bravery of the drivers. It's not that way any longer. And, no I don't think it would be better for the drivers to create more danger. I understand why it is the way it is.
 
NJJammer said:
My personal take is that NASCAR needs to trim 4-6 races off it's schedule but that won't happen until the current TV contract expires in 2024. Too much product and, I believe, too many cars. The field needs to shrink to 32 cars in the near future. Does any fan really care about those bottom 10 racers/cars? I don't.
Click to expand...

Bingo! As less money flows into Nascar there will have to be smaller fields, less series and less races. Unless there is an unprecedented turnaround economics will dictate it.
 
sloggie said:
He's right, but there is nothing to be done about the Drivers being corporate clones as long as the sponsors have the final word. The sponsors have ruined the sport.
Click to expand...

Sponsors and social media don't help. Neither does NASCARs affixation on 1.5 milers.
 
sloggie said:
He's right, but there is nothing to be done about the Drivers being corporate clones as long as the sponsors have the final word. The sponsors have ruined the sport.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt have agreed a few years ago but now I do. I get that nascar is the only major sport that runs on ad revenue but damn its over the top.
 
NJJammer said:
My personal take is that NASCAR needs to trim 4-6 races off it's schedule but that won't happen until the current TV contract expires in 2024. Too much product and, I believe, too many cars. The field needs to shrink to 32 cars in the near future. Does any fan really care about those bottom 10 racers/cars? I don't.
Click to expand...
I agree, too many cars that just fill the field, I'd rather see 30 cars that have a chance of actually winning than another ten added which pretty much run around for 40 laps and park. Trimming the season down to 30 races is long over do also, this way Nascar doesn't conflict with the NFL in the fall as much, personally I love football and when it starts that is my main sports focus come September. Get rid of 6 races, end the Season the last week of September and have the awards when it gets cold and snowy at the end of November. I know this goes against what I said about tradition in another thread, but this idea I think would actually improve Nascar. It will never happen tho, the powers to be are way too money hungry.
 
Mopardh9 said:
I agree, too many cars that just fill the field, I'd rather see 30 cars that have a chance of actually winning than another ten added which pretty much run around for 40 laps and park. ...
Click to expand...
There hasn't been a team using start-n-park as it's model for three or four years now. There's definitely a group of cars that aren't going to compete for a win away from the plate tracks, but there aren't any more S&P teams.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
There hasn't been a team using start-n-park as it's model for three or four years now. There's definitely a group of cars that aren't going to compete for a win away from the plate tracks, but there aren't any more S&P teams.
Click to expand...
Not actually start and park, but you might as well call them that, pretty much the same idea.
 
Low car counts is almost always the main reason local tracks close down. Sure there might be 20 cars out there with little to no chance of winning, but there is nothing more depressing than watching a dozen cars or less competing. At least the field fillers produce extra noise, and obstacles for the 6 teams that figured out the right setup. Indy car struggles to field 20 slots outside of Indianapolis. Cart was fielding less than ten cars in it's final year. Once you go down the road of telling lesser teams they are no longer welcomed, get ready for 24 car fields at Daytona, and 15 car fields outside of the southeast.
Hendrick will field 3 or 4 cars, haas has 1 car with full time sponsorship, Penske 2, Childress 3, Gibbs 3 or 4, ganassi maybe 2. So yeah, if I was Brian France I would be kissing every owners ass regardless if they show up with millions of dollars worth of equipment and staff, or a uhaul van & trailer with an all black painted car and barely a skeleton crew.
 
Another problem with small fields at the local level is that it reduces the number of heat races, if it doesn't eliminate them completely. No point in a six-car heat race when they're all that's in that division tonight. Fewer heats means fewer overall races, which means less entertainment for the fans' money, which means people stay home.

Besides, nobody S&Ps at the local level. Heck, even the winners rarely break even.
 
Building a track in a rural area that didn't have the infrastructure to handle the traffic was a bone headed move. Making it a basically flat one grove track that doubled down on stupid.
A high banked track like Bristol or Dover might have had much better results even without the infrastructure to handle the influx of 70k+ fans..

I was at the first race in 1993, the Slick 50 300. I'm the guy wearing the T-shirt and hat..

 
joe h said:
Low car counts is almost always the main reason local tracks close down. Sure there might be 20 cars out there with little to no chance of winning, but there is nothing more depressing than watching a dozen cars or less competing. At least the field fillers produce extra noise, and obstacles for the 6 teams that figured out the right setup. Indy car struggles to field 20 slots outside of Indianapolis. Cart was fielding less than ten cars in it's final year. Once you go down the road of telling lesser teams they are no longer welcomed, get ready for 24 car fields at Daytona, and 15 car fields outside of the southeast.
Hendrick will field 3 or 4 cars, haas has 1 car with full time sponsorship, Penske 2, Childress 3, Gibbs 3 or 4, ganassi maybe 2. So yeah, if I was Brian France I would be kissing every owners ass regardless if they show up with millions of dollars worth of equipment and staff, or a uhaul van & trailer with an all black painted car and barely a skeleton crew.
Click to expand...
30 quality cars every week would not be low car counts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom