NASCAR is struggling to adapt to a changing sports climate

DanicaFreak said:
if it goes back to the niche ESPN days where it had a much smaller audience, it might be interesting too. question is can you go back?
Click to expand...

A lot of sports have a niche audience and are doing very well. NHL is probably the best example of this. Soccer's carved out a pretty big niche in the United States as well, especially in the Pacific Northwest (Portland and Seattle mainly).

NBC paid $4.4 billion for NASCAR and they're already realizing they overpaid. I watch MSNBC, USA and SyFy all the time and those channels have become commercial towns ever since NBC signed that contract with NASCAR.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I went back a looked at some of the comments about the viewership and interest in Nascar pre-chase and it a 180 degree change from what we see today. It was a good time to be associated with Nascar as the stands were full and people were engaged all over the country.


http://www.jayski.com/pages/tvratings2002.htm

NASCAR Gives FX Biggest Audience Ever: The NASCAR ratings juggernaut paid off in a big way for FX from Dover. The live coverage of the MBNA Platinum 400 delivered a 4.7 rating, reaching 3.65 million households and 5.6 million viewers. These results made it the most-watched telecast in the history of the network. Additionally, the MBNA 400 was the highest-rated show on cable TV last week, even beating out Spongebob Squarepants and WWE wrestling. It helped that The Osbournes wasn't on, allowing NASCAR to take the weekly crown. For the four Winston Cup races on FX so far this year, the overall rating is up 6% from last year, 25% in total households, 20% in average viewers, and 12% in they key male demo of 18-49 year-old couch potatoes. The large 20% and 25% numbers are due to the rise in the number of households receiving FX.(MotorsportsTV)(6-7-2002)

Pocono TV Ratings II: The Winston Cup action from Pocono saw a dramatic increase in ratings, with the Dale Jarrett victory pulling in a 5.1 rating and 15 share. This is up 16% from last year's 4.4 rating and 12 share. Also, the race was up 18% in average viewers (8.0 million vs. 6.8 million). The total number of households reached was 5,393, 000. For the week, it was beaten only by Games 1 to 3 of the NBA Finals and the Belmont Stakes.(MotorsportsTV.com)(6-14-2002)

NASCAR on NBC & TNT Up 13% Heading into Final 2 Races: Through 17 telecasts, NBC & TNT have produced a 4.3 national rating/10 share (excluding this year’s Daytona 500 and last year’s primetime Pepsi 400 - the two races which alternate between NBC and Fox each year), representing a 13 percent increase over a 3.8/10 for the comparable races last year. This growth builds on last year’s 34 percent ratings increase (3.9/10 vs. a 2.9/8) for the inaugural year of NASCAR on NBC & TNT over the comparable races in the 2000 season. TNT’s coverage of last Sunday’s NASCAR Winston Cup race from Rockingham, N.C. delivered a 3.0 converted national household rating/8 share, which represents a three percent improvement over last year’s 2.9/8 on TNT.(NBC PR)(11-6-2002)
Click to expand...
Like the story said, all they had to do was open the gates and the stands were full. My, how times change.
 
No doubt, the broadcasters have the biggest stake in this sport right now. Everything is going to be done to please them. Neat, three hour broadcasts with television cautions are on the horizon. We'll be coming back from every commercial break to another double, who knows, maybe even a triple wide restart!
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
A lot of sports have a niche audience and are doing very well. NHL is probably the best example of this. Soccer's carved out a pretty big niche in the United States as well, especially in the Pacific Northwest (Portland and Seattle mainly).

NBC paid $4.4 billion for NASCAR and they're already realizing they overpaid. I watch MSNBC, USA and SyFy all the time and those channels have become commercial towns ever since NBC signed that contract with NASCAR.
Click to expand...

great post....and I can still recall Neds voice from those ESPN days. I would not mind a smaller market.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Maybe peoples' attention spans would be better if the racing was any good. And the way to fix that is to quit racing at The Brobdingnagians and race at more short tracks and road courses.
Click to expand...

I am a baby boomer and had no problem concentrating on Get Smart, Bewitched, Bonanza or the Ed Sullivan Show but back then there wasn't a lot of variety and watching TV was still kind of cool anyway especially on a color Zenith console model.

As I have aged and the number of choices for programming has increased but my tolerance level for what I consider boring or crap has gone way down. With all the options available to me that are delivered in so many different ways it better be something I like cuz if it ain't it is getting the hook as something else will hold my attention.

Young people can binge watch and concentrate on something they like for hours at a time so your point is well taken.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Like the story said, all they had to do was open the gates and the stands were full. My, how times change.
Click to expand...

When I was in high school in the early-to-mid 2000s, NASCAR was the cool thing. Everyone wore NASCAR jackets and NASCAR shirts. Now, you don't see that stuff anywhere.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Yep, I agree with you.

This sport was continuing it's growth until shortly after the Chase implementation. Many of us were against it from the outset. Others gave it a year to play out. The ratings/attendance tell the story from that point on.

They always seem to be convinced that further changes are necessary. Change is what stunted the growth of this sport. They had it right and they effed it up.
Click to expand...

I will argue that it wasn't just the chase, but the cars had a big effect on the on track racing. In 2007 the COT was introduced, and we have had nothing but crappy racing since.
 
DanicaFreak said:
great post....and I can still recall Neds voice from those ESPN days. I would not mind a smaller market.
Click to expand...

Well, NASCAR's new home at NBCSN specializes in niche sports, so... :idunno:

I'm sick of the "Ratings are down because nobody gets NBCSN" excuse as well. It's included in the lowest priced plan on Playstation.
 
The ammount of commercials are due to how much each network is paying. I felt like both overpaid on this current deal.

NASCAR needs to focus on getting attendance up. If they do that, TV ratings will go up as well.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
NBC's overall presentation is better, IMO. But I like the Fox Sports commentators better.

NBC's visuals (graphics, camera angles) are better. Plus, they utilize side-by-side for commercials a lot more than Fox, and I think NBC tends to frontload its commercials (more commercials at the start and mid stages, fewer commercials at the end).

I like FS1 the most for NASCAR. Jeff Gordon was a great addition to the Fox booth and FS1 seems to have much fewer commercials than the races on big Fox and NBC/NBCSN/CNBC/USA/MSNBC.
Click to expand...
You're right they front load the hell out of them and it's hard to get into the race. The side by side during commercials irritate me. The larger screen should have the race on it since you get the sound from the commercial.
 
Simple Fan said:
I feel like one NBCs problems is their presentation. We noticed watching last year that NBC has more frequent commercials than Fox. Fox's broadcast are a lot more fun as NBCs has more of a professional feel to them as well.
Click to expand...

At this stage of the game I would like Nascar to become more like what this guy represented as it would be an absolute blast. OoooooooYeahhhhhh
randy-savage-laid-to-rest-438044_w1000.jpg
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Well, NASCAR's new home at NBCSN specializes in niche sports, so... :idunno:

I'm sick of the "Ratings are down because nobody gets NBCSN" excuse as well. It's included in the lowest priced plan on Playstation.
Click to expand...

Not everyone owns a PlayStation. NBCSN is on a higher package on Direct TV. I had to upgrade just to get it.
 
MRM said:
The ammount of commercials are due to how much each network is paying. I felt like both overpaid on this current deal.

NASCAR needs to focus on getting attendance up. If they do that, TV ratings will go up as well.
Click to expand...

I don't know, there seems to be a divide there too. What the paying fan wants to see seemingly differs from what the TV fan wants to see. I know A LOT of people who go to The Brobdingnagians for 500 and 600 mile races, love seeing "the speed" and hate the idea of shortening their drin, er, the races. Whereas, the people watching on television fall asleep on that ****.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
When I was in high school in the early-to-mid 2000s, NASCAR was the cool thing. Everyone wore NASCAR jackets and NASCAR shirts. Now, you don't see that stuff anywhere.
Click to expand...

During that and prior to that time you would see a lot of license tags and window decals on cars and truck. It could be anything from a cartoon dude tinkling on the #24 or a great big 8 or 88 in the back window of a pickup. There were actual stores that sold Nascar merchandise and in general just a really great vibe from different age groups. It was a fun time.
 
Simple Fan said:
You're right they front load the hell out of them and it's hard to get into the race. The side by side during commercials irritate me. The larger screen should have the race on it since you get the sound from the commercial.
Click to expand...

Just a thought but have you ever considered DVR'ing the race and watching in progress? If the green flag drops at 1:20 and it is a normal race I can start watching at about 2:50 and FF through all the commercials and other fluff that doesn't matter and finish up the race right around when it is live. I respect that this is not the right thing for everyone but if commercials are a real irritant for you, as they are for me, DVR'ing might be the way to go.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
I don't know, there seems to be a divide there too. What the paying fan wants to see seemingly differs from what the TV fan wants to see. I know A LOT of people who go to The Brobdingnagians for 500 and 600 mile races, love seeing "the speed" and hate the idea of shortening their drin, er, the races. Whereas, the people watching on television fall asleep on that sh!t.
Click to expand...

LOL, there is nothing like the parade of cars at a plate track that will make me go all Rip Van Winkle. However at a short track or road course my eyes might be popping out with excitement.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Just a thought but have you ever considered DVR'ing the race and watching in progress? If the green flag drops at 1:20 and it is a normal race I can start watching at about 2:50 and FF through all the commercials and other fluff that doesn't matter and finish up the race right around when it is live. I respect that this is not the right thing for everyone but if commercials are a real irritant for you, as they are for me, DVR'ing might be the way to go.
Click to expand...
DVR is king but I just can't DVR live sports. If I know they are racing and I can watch I want to watch.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
LOL, there is nothing like the parade of cars at a plate track that will make me go all Rip Van Winkle. However at a short track or road course my eyes might be popping out with excitement.
Click to expand...

People go to Talladega to drink beer all week.

Daytona and Talladega bore me. Boring single file freight train, sometimes a big wreck or two, and an overtime finish that usually ends with supporting evidence proving my theory that Mark Martin was screwed in 2007.

The Brobdingnagians are great for when I need a good Sunday afternoon nap.
 
Simple Fan said:
DVR is king but I just can't DVR live sports. If I know they are racing and I can watch I want to watch.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that as I know many people feel the same way you do. One of the issues with Nascar and me is that a lot of the races are on when the weather is really nice and I enjoy spending time outside, taking a motorcycle ride or lazing about on the lake. If I didn't record the races I would miss most of them and it is something I have done since the VCR days so I am used to it.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
People go to Talladega to drink beer all week.

Daytona and Talladega bore me. Boring single file freight train, sometimes a big wreck or two, and an overtime finish that usually ends with supporting evidence proving my theory that Mark Martin was screwed in 2007.

The Brobdingnagians are great for when I need a good Sunday afternoon nap.
Click to expand...

I wonder if guys like Helton and the TV execs truly know that often times they are putting on a complete ****show or if they think like Brian who believes "the racing has never been better than it is today."
 
The article wasn’t about racing, it was about big business board room stuff. It was about the pursuit of the almighty 18- to 34-year-old demographic coveted by advertisers. I got the impression that having older fans is a bad thing. If the numbers don’t go up all the time there is a failure somewhere. They compare numbers from the time when NASCAR grew really fast during the era when the races were on broadcast television – a time when a lot of bandwagon fans stopped by. (I think the declining track attendance might have something to do with costs outside the race track).

I can’t imagine the type of suggestions a broadcaster might make to change racing. For race fans, racing is a pretty straight forward sport.

The article also pointed out the negativity toward Brian France. They did acknowledge that some of his changes were good ones.
 
I'm dead-center in their coveted 18-35 bracket and to me, it all comes down to cars. The cars they have now are crammed with engineering b.s., downforce (less now, but still a lot), and the took the HP away to "save money". Teams in NASCAR do not SAVE money, the just use it somewhere else.

IMHO, NASCAR needs to remove their heads from their asses and realize that this Gen-6 car, cool though it my look (debatable, but that's a whole different conversation), produces the worst racing I've seen outside of F1. Ditch the splitter, raise the ride heights so the cars aren't glued to the asphalt, and take away all of the stupid shark fins to help straighten cars out, and make the bodies symmetrical to get rid of the air-wall of "side-force" on the right side of the car. I mean SERIOUSLY??!! These are supposed to be the best stock car drivers in the world and we give them aero help to stop spinning out? Ridiculous. These cars should be so on edge that a whisper of contact could send them around, ala the early-mid 2000's. Those cars may have looked weird compared to their road going versions, but they were hard to hang on to, and you could tell even on TV. THAT'S what made them so fun to watch. Was every race amazing? No, of course not, but you could tell how hard they had to drive to stay in control and make passes. The driver truly made the thing work, not a bunch of engineers back at the shop who work enough downforce into the body to glue all 4 tires to the race track.

(sorry if this was a bit ramble-y but this topic fires me up to no end and I just joined this forum so I want there to be no questions where I stand haha.)
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
There is nothing wrong with being optimistic providing it doesn't blind one to reality. Nascar has made many changes in the past 15 years and has continued to hemorrhage fans at an unprecedented rate but an optimist will think that the next changes that are to come will finally be the salvation Nascar has been looking for. A realist will be hopeful that the next round of changes will improve things but cannot be optimistic based on a 15 year record of failure.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you Skoal , the past changes have been ineffective and they continue to see further change as a possible solution . HELLO , videos of twenty year old races are more popular than live races . I see nothing to be optimistic about .
 
MarcWiley said:
I'm dead-center in their coveted 18-35 bracket and to me, it all comes down to cars. The cars they have now are crammed with engineering b.s., downforce (less now, but still a lot), and the took the HP away to "save money". Teams in NASCAR do not SAVE money, the just use it somewhere else.

IMHO, NASCAR needs to remove their heads from their asses and realize that this Gen-6 car, cool though it my look (debatable, but that's a whole different conversation), produces the worst racing I've seen outside of F1. Ditch the splitter, raise the ride heights so the cars aren't glued to the asphalt, and take away all of the stupid shark fins to help straighten cars out, and make the bodies symmetrical to get rid of the air-wall of "side-force" on the right side of the car. I mean SERIOUSLY??!! These are supposed to be the best stock car drivers in the world and we give them aero help to stop spinning out? Ridiculous. These cars should be so on edge that a whisper of contact could send them around, ala the early-mid 2000's. Those cars may have looked weird compared to their road going versions, but they were hard to hang on to, and you could tell even on TV. THAT'S what made them so fun to watch. Was every race amazing? No, of course not, but you could tell how hard they had to drive to stay in control and make passes. The driver truly made the thing work, not a bunch of engineers back at the shop who work enough downforce into the body to glue all 4 tires to the race track.

(sorry if this was a bit ramble-y but this topic fires me up to no end and I just joined this forum so I want there to be no questions where I stand haha.)
Click to expand...
No you pretty much nailed it. Although apparently the ride heights haven't changed, the splitter and side skirts just give that illusion. If only this could be printed out and placed on Brian's desk every morning.
 
AdoubleU24 said:
No you pretty much nailed it. Although apparently the ride heights haven't changed, the splitter and side skirts just give that illusion. If only this could be printed out and placed on Brian's desk every morning.
Click to expand...
I'm in his demographic...maybe he'll bring me on as an "advisor"
 
MarcWiley said:
I'm dead-center in their coveted 18-35 bracket and to me, it all comes down to cars. The cars they have now are crammed with engineering b.s., downforce (less now, but still a lot), and the took the HP away to "save money". Teams in NASCAR do not SAVE money, the just use it somewhere else.

IMHO, NASCAR needs to remove their heads from their asses and realize that this Gen-6 car, cool though it my look (debatable, but that's a whole different conversation), produces the worst racing I've seen outside of F1. Ditch the splitter, raise the ride heights so the cars aren't glued to the asphalt, and take away all of the stupid shark fins to help straighten cars out, and make the bodies symmetrical to get rid of the air-wall of "side-force" on the right side of the car. I mean SERIOUSLY??!! These are supposed to be the best stock car drivers in the world and we give them aero help to stop spinning out? Ridiculous. These cars should be so on edge that a whisper of contact could send them around, ala the early-mid 2000's. Those cars may have looked weird compared to their road going versions, but they were hard to hang on to, and you could tell even on TV. THAT'S what made them so fun to watch. Was every race amazing? No, of course not, but you could tell how hard they had to drive to stay in control and make passes. The driver truly made the thing work, not a bunch of engineers back at the shop who work enough downforce into the body to glue all 4 tires to the race track.

(sorry if this was a bit ramble-y but this topic fires me up to no end and I just joined this forum so I want there to be no questions where I stand haha.)
Click to expand...

Mid 2000's Cup car.

nascar-cup-homestead-2006-jimmie-johnson.jpg


This car generated far more down-force than do current cars.
 
aunty dive said:
Mid 2000's Cup car.

nascar-cup-homestead-2006-jimmie-johnson.jpg


This car generated far more down-force than do current cars.
Click to expand...
You think so? They had a short spoiler, shorter window fin, and NO sharkfin on the trunk to help keep the car straight, and no splitter to seal the front of the car to the ground. Plus, look at the "shelf" between the window and the spoiler on the #19 car. Not the best photo to show it, but the angle of that slopes downward back to front creating piles of downforce. The #48 photo that section is on much less of a slope, and the only place that makes a ton of downforce is the hood/nose and the A-posts. Not to mention all the ridiculous fender flares on the 2016 car that create downforce as well, which the old cars didn't have at all.

img_3496.jpeg
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Obviously, the TV executives aren't happy.
Click to expand...

There used to be a member here that told me several times how great the TV contract was for the Networks as they would be able to charge a lot more to the cable and sat companies for the privilege of carrying their channel. I wish he was here to face the music today.
 
MarcWiley said:
I'm dead-center in their coveted 18-35 bracket and to me, it all comes down to cars. The cars they have now are crammed with engineering b.s., downforce (less now, but still a lot), and the took the HP away to "save money". Teams in NASCAR do not SAVE money, the just use it somewhere else.

IMHO, NASCAR needs to remove their heads from their asses and realize that this Gen-6 car, cool though it my look (debatable, but that's a whole different conversation), produces the worst racing I've seen outside of F1. Ditch the splitter, raise the ride heights so the cars aren't glued to the asphalt, and take away all of the stupid shark fins to help straighten cars out, and make the bodies symmetrical to get rid of the air-wall of "side-force" on the right side of the car. I mean SERIOUSLY??!! These are supposed to be the best stock car drivers in the world and we give them aero help to stop spinning out? Ridiculous. These cars should be so on edge that a whisper of contact could send them around, ala the early-mid 2000's. Those cars may have looked weird compared to their road going versions, but they were hard to hang on to, and you could tell even on TV. THAT'S what made them so fun to watch. Was every race amazing? No, of course not, but you could tell how hard they had to drive to stay in control and make passes. The driver truly made the thing work, not a bunch of engineers back at the shop who work enough downforce into the body to glue all 4 tires to the race track.

(sorry if this was a bit ramble-y but this topic fires me up to no end and I just joined this forum so I want there to be no questions where I stand haha.)
Click to expand...

Greg Biffle and Jimmie Johnson loved those twitchy cars.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Greg Biffle and Jimmie Johnson loved those twitchy cars.
Click to expand...
Hell yes they did, as did many others. Denny Hamlin at Phoenix in 2013 said it best, "It's impossible to pass with these cars"....a quote that NASCAR fined him over. Turns out, shoulda listened to the guy.
 
MarcWiley said:
You think so? They had a short spoiler, shorter window fin, and NO sharkfin on the trunk to help keep the car straight, and no splitter to seal the front of the car to the ground. Plus, look at the "shelf" between the window and the spoiler on the #19 car. Not the best photo to show it, but the angle of that slopes downward back to front creating piles of downforce. The #48 photo that section is on much less of a slope, and the only place that makes a ton of downforce is the hood/nose and the A-posts. Not to mention all the ridiculous fender flares on the 2016 car that create downforce as well, which the old cars didn't have at all.
Click to expand...

It's a fact. Downforce was significantly reduced in 2007 / 8 as per the COT design parameters. The front / rear df numbers have gone up and back down again since that time. They are currently far lower than those produced in the twisted sister era.

The front and sides of the car I pictured aren't sealed to the track? I believe they are ... thank you coil-bound front suspension.
 
aunty dive said:
It's a fact. Downforce was significantly reduced in 2007 / 8 as per the COT design parameters. The front / rear df numbers have gone up and back down again since that time. They are currently far lower than those produced in the twisted sister era.

The front and sides of the car I pictured aren't sealed to the track? I believe they are ... thank you coil-bound front suspension.
Click to expand...
Not in the same way that the splitters do it. I mean this is to the point where it's damn near (if not, actually) grazing the track surface. Each their own, and maybe my reasoning isn't right, but the 'twisted sister' cars were much harder to drive.
16ATL1MT1150.jpg
 
MarcWiley said:
Not in the same way that the splitters do it. I mean this is to the point where it's damn near (if not, actually) grazing the track surface. Each their own, and maybe my reasoning isn't right, but the 'twisted sister' cars were much harder to drive.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "to each his own".

The idea that the older cars had less df is a fallacy. Whether or not they were more difficult to drive is not a statement I can refute. I've never driven either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom