NASCAR, once a cultural icon, hits the skids (WSJ)

AndyMarquisLive said:
Also, this is what I think of the trash the USA Today published on Sunday night/Monday morning. I think the writer had already written an article about Chase Elliott winning or a column about how Chase Elliott's win being a big day in NASCAR history and when Kurt Busch won, he had to delete his drafts. Just my educated opinion.
Click to expand...


AndyMarquisLive said:
This article is starting to fall apart.

Looks to me, as a journalist, like they had the article written before talking to anyone, then talked to a few owners to plug a few quotes in and only included the parts that fit their narrative.

Quotes go on the chopping block all the time, but it looks to me like the owners were mis-represented bigly.

I can't tell you how many times I've written a story and called a driver to get a quote to plug in and then, after talking to them, deleted my draft and started from scratch because of what their comments were. That's how good, honest, responsible journalism works.

The WSJ article created the narrative that the owners think there's no leadership in NASCAR and nobody trying to right the ship. Turns out they think just the opposite, that NASCAR is trying to make changes.
Click to expand...

Not sure there is enough responsible journalism to go around.

Everyone is putting their own spin or filter on what are supposed to be objective facts and narratives. EVERYONE. We live in a world of facts, alternative facts, misdirection and outright lies and most (myself included) have become cynical. We try to see through the filters, spin and BS and occasionally put together the gist of it and determine our own "truth" knowing that we have our own perspectives and filters to deal with.

Comes down to "Quid est veritas?" John 18:38...and I'm agnostic.
 
NJJammer said:
Not sure there is enough responsible journalism to go around.

Everyone is putting their own spin or filter on what are supposed to be objective facts and narratives. EVERYONE. We live in a world of facts, alternative facts, misdirection and outright lies and most (myself included) have become cynical. We try to see through the filters, spin and BS and occasionally put together the gist of it and determine our own "truth" knowing that we have our own perspectives and filters to deal with.

Comes down to "Quid est veritas?" John 18:38...and I'm agnostic.
Click to expand...

Too many people watch Fox News and think that's what journalism is... you pick the facts you want to pick, air the parts you want to air and give your "in-depth analysis" (opinion) on it all. And the reporting validates your opinion.

(And before someone complains about it, I singled Fox News out because they're the ones who invented this model)

That's not how it works.

In the amount of time they spend analyzing what Brian France said before the race or how Chase Elliott not winning the Daytona 500 is the death of NASCAR:rolleyes:, they could've written stories about some of the underdogs who scored surprising finishes. Or written about how Kevin Harvick won a stage, then got swept up in a wreck and rebounded for a strong finish. Or any other storyline.

The WSJ article is "Fox News journalism" at its finest. Invent your narrative (NASCAR is dying and the sport leadership is incompetent and doesn't care), select a few facts that fit your narrative, pick a few quotes that pick your narrative and hit publish.
 
Barbara Charles said:
@AndyMarquisLive : I do not know if this has been posted but the WSJ is owned by the same people who own Fox.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.

The WSJ has a horrible reputation too. Instead of covering what happens inside Wall Street and exposing corruption, they've become a PR firm for the big banks and big corporations. And they have a horrible tendency to make stuff up in "Editorials" that then get cited as "investigative reports" by Fox News.
 
I'm reminded of a story the WSJ wrote about the US Military Academy at West Point back in the late '70s or early '80s. The WSJ called the institution joyless or humorless, or words to that effect.

The school paper's response was that was a rather ironic comment to be coming from a newspaper without a Comics section.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
This article is starting to fall apart.

Looks to me, as a journalist, like they had the article written before talking to anyone, then talked to a few owners to plug a few quotes in and only included the parts that fit their narrative.

Quotes go on the chopping block all the time, but it looks to me like the owners were mis-represented bigly.

I can't tell you how many times I've written a story and called a driver to get a quote to plug in and then, after talking to them, deleted my draft and started from scratch because of what their comments were. That's how good, honest, responsible journalism works.

The WSJ article created the narrative that the owners think there's no leadership in NASCAR and nobody trying to right the ship. Turns out they think just the opposite, that NASCAR is trying to make changes.
Click to expand...

I don't remember if it was this or some other article that Roger Penske and Joe Gibbs got upset about and tried to refute. It was comical as each of them spoke about their own organizations being healthy but didn't broach the subject of Nascar as a whole.
 
NJJammer said:
Not sure there is enough responsible journalism to go around.

Everyone is putting their own spin or filter on what are supposed to be objective facts and narratives. EVERYONE. We live in a world of facts, alternative facts, misdirection and outright lies and most (myself included) have become cynical. We try to see through the filters, spin and BS and occasionally put together the gist of it and determine our own "truth" knowing that we have our own perspectives and filters to deal with.

Comes down to "Quid est veritas?" John 18:38...and I'm agnostic.
Click to expand...

You have a left slant and a right slant plus fake news and all the things you mentioned. I don't believe anyone.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Too many people watch Fox News and think that's what journalism is... you pick the facts you want to pick, air the parts you want to air and give your "in-depth analysis" (opinion) on it all. And the reporting validates your opinion.

(And before someone complains about it, I singled Fox News out because they're the ones who invented this model)

That's not how it works.

In the amount of time they spend analyzing what Brian France said before the race or how Chase Elliott not winning the Daytona 500 is the death of NASCAR:rolleyes:, they could've written stories about some of the underdogs who scored surprising finishes. Or written about how Kevin Harvick won a stage, then got swept up in a wreck and rebounded for a strong finish. Or any other storyline.

The WSJ article is "Fox News journalism" at its finest. Invent your narrative (NASCAR is dying and the sport leadership is incompetent and doesn't care), select a few facts that fit your narrative, pick a few quotes that pick your narrative and hit publish.
Click to expand...

It isn't just FOX as most other networks feature limousine liberals acting as shills for the Barney Franks and Al Franken's of the world.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
It isn't just FOX as most other networks feature limousine liberals acting as shills for the Barney Franks and Al Franken's of the world.
Click to expand...

I singled out Fox because they invented the current model. CNN, MSNBC and others hopped on board when Fox News ended up becoming the most watched channel on television.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Your ill-informed misguided rant about the charter system makes no economic sense. In this zero sum game, you would strip away cash flow that is crucial to the survival of numerous existing teams, and offer it to hypothetical new entrants that don't have the capital to build a viable race team. It is a Days Of Thunder, Harry Hogge-esque fantasy... but the economic reality is far different.

Nascar's ongoing survival depends upon a cast of race teams showing up *every week* that are ready to race. That is hard to do, even with the financial benefits of owning a charter. Just ask Tommy Baldwin or Harry Scott. Ask Richard Petty and Andy Murstein. These are the guys that Nascar's business model has to support, as well as new entrants that can actually succeed such as Barney Visser and Tad Geschickter.

IMO your rants about the evil greedy men who own Nascar race teams are misguided and clueless about basic economic realities.
Click to expand...

The basic economic reality I see is the same one I see in all facets of this society - those who have much taking from those who have little until they have none. As it was, the bottom-rank prize reductions seem to have been an effective enough barrier for so many of the small teams you seem to have no use for. We didn't need to effectively lock fresh blood out of the field just because the old blood is worried about "losing their investment" - an investment, incidentally, they seemed to have under control just fine given that they always seem to find new sponsors when the old ones leave, something that never happens when teams like Baldwin and Scott lose them. Not to mention, the Charters have an economic burden - you have to pay in order to get the guaranteed spot and the revenue flow from the Charter. Perhaps this is why Baldwin was finally unable to keep his team afloat, even though he had nearly half his sponsor slots filled through 2018. The fact that the uppermost tier has only added, at the cost of the middle and bottom tiers, shows how perverse the Charters truly are.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
The basic economic reality I see is the same one I see in all facets of this society - those who have much taking from those who have little until they have none.
Click to expand...

So ... if this is economic reality and happens in all facets of society ... is it reasonable to think that it ought not to be happening in professional motorsports?

I have news for you. The ditches around every racetrack in the world are filled with the corpses of failed team and car owners. At every level, people who want to go racing will find a way. For the benefit of those who yearn for how things were back in the day ... it has ever been thus.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Not to mention, the Charters have an economic burden - you have to pay in order to get the guaranteed spot and the revenue flow from the Charter. Perhaps this is why Baldwin was finally unable to keep his team afloat....
Click to expand...
Wrong. Tommy Baldwin did not pay for his charter. He paid for his team to show up every week during the three-year base period, and thus earned the award of his charter.

The purpose of the charter system was (and is) to create a team ownership business model viable enough to attract new owners to the sport. One needs only to look at history to understand how crucial that is to the survival of the sport...

1. The quality teams that define Nascar competition are mostly owned by elderly men. Penske is 80, Gibbs 76, Roush 75, Childress 71, Hendrick 67.

2. There has only been one successful generational transition in the entire history of Nascar race teams, and that one was only semi successful (Petty Enterprises from Lee Petty control to Richard Petty control). The pattern of history is that ownership turns over, not that it passes from generation to generation within a family.

3. The pre-charter economics of team ownership cannot attract a new generation of capable, adequately funded owners. The financial rewards are too meager for the risks involved. Unless this gets fixed, Nascar's supply of teams will dwindle as the elderly current owners inevitably leave the sport.

4. The recent steps taken to improve the situation have not solved the problem completely, but have been directionally correct. I expect future battles over revenue distribution to be ongoing.

PS: Roger Penske says his team will carry on after he is gone. Most or all of the others can't say that with conviction.
 
aunty dive said:
So ... if this is economic reality and happens in all facets of society ... is it reasonable to think that it ought not to be happening in professional motorsports?

I have news for you. The ditches around every racetrack in the world are filled with the corpses of failed team and car owners. At every level, people who want to go racing will find a way. For the benefit of those who yearn for how things were back in the day ... it has ever been thus.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to think that it shouldn't happen anywhere, ever. But it will keep happening as long as we allow the economically advantaged to dictate the rules of our society.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Wrong. Tommy Baldwin did not pay for his charter. He paid for his team to show up every week during the three-year base period, and thus earned the award of his charter.

The purpose of the charter system was (and is) to create a team ownership business model viable enough to attract new owners to the sport. One needs only to look at history to understand how crucial that is to the survival of the sport...

1. The quality teams that define Nascar competition are mostly owned by elderly men. Penske is 80, Gibbs 76, Roush 75, Childress 71, Hendrick 67.

2. There has only been one successful generational transition in the entire history of Nascar race teams, and that one was only semi successful (Petty Enterprises from Lee Petty control to Richard Petty control). The pattern of history is that ownership turns over, not that it passes from generation to generation within a family.

3. The pre-charter economics of team ownership cannot attract a new generation of capable, adequately funded owners. The financial rewards are too meager for the risks involved. Unless this gets fixed, Nascar's supply of teams will dwindle as the elderly current owners inevitably leave the sport.

4. The recent steps taken to improve the situation have not solved the problem completely, but have been directionally correct. I expect future battles over revenue distribution to be ongoing.

PS: Roger Penske says his team will carry on after he is gone. Most or all of the others can't say that with conviction.
Click to expand...

While your first three points are pretty much incontrovertible, there has to be a solution to revenue distribution that doesn't involve effectively locking out anyone who isn't already involved. I can't stand for the idea of 36 of the 40 spots being untouchable to a start-up that can't afford to buy one of those spots, or isn't allowed to by the owners who already have them (since the RTA has such significant power to determine who gets to buy said charters). Especially since they made it even harder for the Open teams to hang on by unnecessarily cutting the field down from 43. (which was filled w/out post-entries in every race of 2015, and 31 times was exceeded on the entry lists that year) And if it comes to pass that none of the current teams are able to transition generationally, then where are the new owners going to come from if no one new's going to attempt to enter the sport because of the incredibly high bar to ownership?
 
Acs said:
"Roger Penske, a race-team owner, says the typical Nascar fan makes $ 35,000 to $45,000 a year. Nascar says average household income of fans is $70,000, close to the U.S. average, citing data from Nielsen Scarborough."

Yep, they're clueless.
Click to expand...
Usually a household income consists of a husband and wife. If the average household income is $70,000 that's about $35,000 per person. That's pretty close to the $35,000-45,000 per fan Roger Penske said.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
I think it's reasonable to think that it shouldn't happen anywhere, ever. But it will keep happening as long as we allow the economically advantaged to dictate the rules of our society.
Click to expand...
Welcome to 2017 ... and every year that preceded it in the first world.
 
On topic of the thread, the NXS crowd at Atlanta was no better or worse than last year.
 
Too many rules, tech changes! Nascar is self destructing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom