NASCAR has unfair control over race schedule

dpkimmel2001

dpkimmel2001

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
36,197
Points
1,033
Location
Western PA
OK, so I'm probably in the minority on this subject on this board but are you kidding me? Unfair control over the race schedule. Who else should have control over the race schedule other than the sanctioning body. I think this whole Kentucky Speedway lawsuit is BS.

Link to article here..... http://www.thatsracin.com/140/story/14600.html

I feel for you people in that area of the country that want a race in your backyard. I just don't think what is going on is any way to get it done.
 
I don't know. They may be on to something there. I've long felt that the NFL has unfair control over the football schedule. And don't get me started on the unfair control MLB and NBA has setting their schedules.
 
Who should be setting the schedule then? Should anyone that decides to build a track be awarded a race?
 
If NASCAR doesn't decide the schedule then who does? The track owners? God, that would be worse than FIA!

The fans? Don't make me laugh. Fans, being short for fanatic, don't know what's best for the sport. Everyone on this site is racings version of a "Monday Morning Quarterback." We think we know everything that's best for the sport, but really know nothing. How could we? We don't sit in the boardroom where these choices are made. We don't know the numbers, facts, and figures behind the choices. We don't know, and never will know.

Yahtzee said:
Fans are clinging, complaining dip****s who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The sooner you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you'll be for it.
Click to expand...

We're fans. We watch the sport because we like it. Not because we know how to run it. At the end of the day, NASCAR, like any other sport, is a business. It's NASCAR's sandbox. They can do what they like. All we can do is either watch the races, or not.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Who should be setting the schedule then? Should anyone that decides to build a track be awarded a race?
Click to expand...

I guess they want it to be a bid process. We all know that won't work.

The arguement they have, but don't seem to make enough, is there is a conflict of interest with the same people owning NASCAR and ISC. NASCAR does allow races from other track owners, so they don't have a true monopoly on scheduling. Still, the process of adding another track is very subjective with no rhyme or reason.
 
I think its crap that alot of tracks have two dates. Ive got to the point to where no track needs two dates. Move the races around. Have races at differnt tracks, and switch em up in the chase and do not anounce them tell it gets close to the chase. Alanta, Ponaco, Texas, Cail, do not need two races.

foehammer, do you disgaree with anything nascar does?
 
Lap3Forever said:
foehammer, do you disgaree with anything nascar does?
Click to expand...

Yes. A lot actually. Pretty much the same stuff that everyone else disagrees with.

The difference is that I don't let my being a fan of the sport cloud the fact that it's NASCAR's show. I complain about lots of different things, but none of them are major issues to me. If I had a serious problem with the way NASCAR was doing something, I'd stop watching instead of going onto an Internet forum to complain about it.
 
foehammer111 said:
Yes. A lot actually. Pretty much the same stuff that everyone else disagrees with.

The difference is that I don't let my being a fan of the sport cloud the fact that it's NASCAR's show. I complain about lots of different things, but none of them are major issues to me. If I had a serious problem with the way NASCAR was doing something, I'd stop watching instead of going onto an Internet forum to complain about it.
Click to expand...

Sorry i ment dpkimmel2001.

I copy and pasted the wrong user name. :D
 
Lap3Forever said:
I think its crap that alot of tracks have two dates. Ive got to the point to where no track needs two dates. Move the races around. Have races at differnt tracks, and switch em up in the chase and do not anounce them tell it gets close to the chase. Alanta, Ponaco, Texas, Cail, do not need two races.

foehammer, do you disgaree with anything nascar does?
Click to expand...

IMO this would kill attendance. I am in process of making arrangements for next year and which races I will attend. How could I schedule my vacation if I did not know when or where the race would be?
 
I need to schedule days off way in advance, I need to know the date as much ahead as possible.
Nascar owns the sandbox, I may not always agree but it's their decision.
 
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with NA__AR setting the schedule. It's only logical, in my way of thinking anyway.

BUT... I do have a problem with ISC (the publicly-traded side of NA__AR) building, buying and owning the tracks the major NA__AR races where the major NA__AR races are held. I see that as a major conflict of interest and a major obstacle to tracks NOT owned by ISC, or Bruton's SMI which is in bed with ISC on multiple levels.

But, I'm probably in the minority on that one.
 
If you don't want monitored control over your sanctioned event then go have an unsactioned event by yourself at your local park. :idunno:
 
I believe they tried that before Bobby and Big Bill said if they did they would never run in Na$car again.
 
SST55 said:
I believe they tried that before Bobby and Big Bill said if they did they would never run in Na$car again.
Click to expand...
When did he say that, SST? I know my memory isn't what it once was but that one doesn't ring any bells?

I know he got Curtis Turner and Bob Flock when they tried to organize the drivers for the Teamsters. I remember he got pretty irate over Petty and the other drivers forming the PDA and threatened them all with expulsion but he backed down. But, to my knowledge, there is no rule set by NA__AR not letting the active drivers run only Cup races on Cup race dates. But, I could be very wrong on this one, too.

For example, Bill Elliott has driven a couple of local track races in Georgia and here in Alabama on Cup Saturday nights.

The only racing organization I know of which set such a rule was the old AAA Series back in the 50's. They didn't want any of their 500 drivers running any races but AAA, and a couple were kept out of the Indy 500 for that reason.
 
It was on a tv show about Na$car several years ago. IIRC There were 2 races on the same date with one Na$car sanctioned and the other not. The non-sanctioned event paid more, BigBill caught wind that several of the stars were planning on skipping his race. At the drivers meeting he informed them if they ran the upcoming non-sanctioned event rather than his sanctioned event they would never run in Na$car again. I'll try to find a link.
 
SST55 said:
It was on a tv show about Na$car several years ago. IIRC There were 2 races on the same date with one Na$car sanctioned and the other not. The non-sanctioned event paid more, BigBill caught wind that several of the stars were planning on skipping his race. At the drivers meeting he informed them if they ran the upcoming non-sanctioned event rather than his sanctioned event they would never run in Na$car again. I'll try to find a link.
Click to expand...
I think the event you are thinking about might have been during NASCAR's first or second year. Bruton Smith's Nat'l Stock Car Racing Assoc. was competing against NASCAR directly, in the same geographic areas (Southeast). Curtis Turner and Hubert Westmoreland, I think I once read, wanted to run NSCRA but Big Bill threatened them and they stayed with NASCAR.

I'll have to do some digging but I believe that's the way it went down, or close to it, anyway. It was one of the things which kept France and Bruton at odds with each other for years.

Thanks for the response.
 
SST55 said:
It was on a tv show about Na$car several years ago. IIRC There were 2 races on the same date with one Na$car sanctioned and the other not. The non-sanctioned event paid more, BigBill caught wind that several of the stars were planning on skipping his race. At the drivers meeting he informed them if they ran the upcoming non-sanctioned event rather than his sanctioned event they would never run in Na$car again. I'll try to find a link.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see the link too. The only time I can remember them threatening to not run the race was @ Talladega because of the tire situation around 1969. Some didn't run. There's a good story on that here..... http://premium.nascar.com/2009/news...maumann.rbrickhouse.talladega.1969/index.html
 
I think I remember hearing this story too, but didn't this happen in the first few years NASCAR was around? Like pre-1950?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom