P
pettyfan4life
Guest
Vote on it it is about if you could give anyone a win in 2003 that was winless this year a win for chriustmas who would it be Kyle is leading wooohoooo lol
Originally posted by TN-Ward-Fan
Well, I hate to break it to you, but Sterling Marlin ain't exactly set the woods on fire before last season either. And I for one fully expect a finish out of the top 10 in points for him in 2003.
Originally posted by TN-Ward-Fan
As to competitiveness, I'll put NASCAR up against CART, F1, or any other series for the number of top, competitive teams competing at any given time.
Originally posted by paul
What is it that you dislike about Ganassi? That he races pointy cars?
Originally posted by paul
Heh...When you have 40+ drivers every race of course you're going to get more "winners". It's a nice illusion created by NASCAR.
Originally posted by bud_stud
What I dont understand.. Park, Waltrip, Harvick.. they had a bad year... but already, you all have marked them as non-producers. WTF? 1 year guys!!!!!!!!!! Before Park got hurt, he was kickin ass... Harvick can get the job done, so can Waltrip... give it time guys.. Good Lord.
And as far as Spencer goes... he can be alright givin a good car. That 41 aint as stacked up as the 40 car is..
Originally posted by paul
Heh...When you have 40+ drivers every race of course you're going to get more "winners". It's a nice illusion created by NASCAR. Drivers in F1 and CART are lucky to complete a full season if they don't produce. No good old boy network there for them to just go out there and damage equipment every week.
Originally posted by TN-Ward-Fan
I think if NASCAR went to 30....even 20 starters a week, we'd see about the same number of different winners we see now. Maybe if CART had 40+ teams a week, their racing would improve.