Rotating dates

[stridsberry]

This is an excert from an article by Dave Moody, published yesterday in the Vermont Times Argus.


"…Michael Waltrip unabashedly describes himself as “loopy.” But last week, the NAPA Chevrolet driver put forth a NASCAR Winston Cup scheduling plan that was brilliant in its simplicity.

"Asked about the very real possibility of Darlington and Rockingham losing one of their two race dates next season, Waltrip suggested taking a date from one of the tracks, every other year. Under his proposal, Darlington would lose a race next year, but get it back in 2005. Rockingham would keep both of its races next season, but host only once in `05. NASCAR could then move the “extra race” anywhere they wanted, on either a permanent or rotating basis."

Do you think this is a good idea? I do; I think it's a good compromise between expanding the series and staying true to their roots.

 

[Zekk]

I totally agree with you Stridsberry! i feel its a good comprimise, this way we don't lose history from the series

 

[robby.31.is.#1]

better idea the jerry nadeau brought up:

why not just run at more tracks but only one time?

there is no need to go back to the same track twice.

 

[Tiny]

Mickey isn't so smart. I preposed the same thing on several boards right after the story of Darlington and Rocingham losing their dates came out. Mickey stole the idea from me. If I had be on TV like him I would have been credited with the idea.

 

[Ward Burton]

I think that Nascar can solve all of these problems by this...Every other year give a certain race track 2 races...that would change the schedule around every year as well! ( ex. Chicago gets 2 races in 2004...but 1 the next year..and a track like oh...Texas gets a 2nd race that year that Chicago only has 1. )

 

[stridsberry]

Originally posted by Tiny@Apr 4 2003, 04:31 PM
Mickey isn't so smart. I preposed the same thing on several boards right after the story of Darlington and Rocingham losing their dates came out. Mickey stole the idea from me. If I had be on TV like him I would have been credited with the idea.

I'm sure that plenty of people came up with that idea by themselves, Tiny - you included. But Michael's a prominent enough figure that reporters will actually listen to him.

 

[66mustang]

I don't like the idea of switching. Lets just get rid of the boring tracks such as California, Chicagoland and Kansas.

 

[Ward Burton]

Originally posted by 66mustang@Apr 4 2003, 03:40 PM
I don't like the idea of switching. Lets just get rid of the boring tracks such as California, Chicagoland and Kansas.

Lets not and say we did! Kansas is the only track thats close enough for me to go to!

 

[66mustang]

Oh, then will leave Kansas.

And I guess Chicagoland too cause that's the only place Harvick can win at.

I guess we're messed over huh?

 

[DeeDee]

I think that is an excellent idea!

 

[Mopardh9]

California, Chicago , and Kansas will be multi groove tracks as soon as the asphalt wears in....look at the racing at Vegas this year! That track is getting older and it was the best it has ever been, 3 wide and at a few points i saw 4 wide racing! I don't know why you guys trash the other tracks , yet you don't complain about the road tracks nearly as much....these are the ones that need to exit the schedule and quickly!

 

[66mustang]

Yeah, lets get rid of the tracks that actually require driving skill. Sounds great.

 

[PettyBenson]

I like that idea!! Manybe they should do that with a couple other tracks!

 

[Mopardh9]

Yeh ok all the other tracks don't require driver skill???? :lol: :lol:

 

[ksurocks]

Originally posted by robby.31.is.#1@Apr 4 2003, 03:31 PM
better idea the jerry nadeau brought up:

why not just run at more tracks but only one time?

there is no need to go back to the same track twice.

I like Jerry's idea too.
Kansas will get more grooves as time goes on and It will be better. ( I too am VERY close to this track..5miles away)