Shame.

C

CypressTrout

Guest
It's a shame that the best tracks on the circuit (rockingham and darlington) are the ones under constant fire about losing their race dates. Sell out or not, the best races every year are had at these venues. Just too bad that we can't see great racing like that every week.
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
I like Rockingham and Darlington. But to say they are the best tracks on the circuit is a little far reaching............if that were so, why don't they sell out at least once in a while? It's sad, true...........but when money can't be made it's time to change.
 
T

TonyB

Guest
The thousands of fans that don't come out to those tracks must not agree that it's good racing. If they did, there wouldn't be so many empty seats all the time...
 
G

Gollum

Guest
Originally posted by TonyB@Feb 22 2004, 10:47 PM
The thousands of fans that don't come out to those tracks must not agree that it's good racing. If they did, there wouldn't be so many empty seats all the time...
That does make sence. All other tracks can sell out. But Rockingham has plenty of empty seats. :idunno:
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
Besides the area being pretty much saturated by quality tracks for NASCAR, I think part of the problem is that both Darlington and Rockingham are tracks better suited for TV coverage than for direct attendance. It's the long green flag runs that usually occur shortly after the start of the races and the cars get all strung out. It can be pretty hard to see the passes and racing for position that is occurring when you are stationary in the stands. But that don't bring the gate dollars in so something has to change.

Remember North Wilkes Borro? I thought NASCAR had just signed their own death certificate when they dropped that track!! The sport will survive.....believe me. :D
 
C

CypressTrout

Guest
Atlanta never seels out & is never in jeopardy of losing a race .I understand the attempt at nationwide appeal for racing but the racing at these track is always good. I live in Texas and I don't want another Texas date. Sure, it would sell out & make tons of money but the racing still wouldn't compare to the rock & darlington. I could personally do without loudon, one atlanta race, phoenix, chicagoland , and one talladega date . Just my opinion.
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
I can do without second dates at all the tracks that have them......including California (Cutie and I are going to the May race......up in the air about the Labor Day race. We know how hot it gets in Fontana during late summer :) ). That way we could have 36 races at 36 different tracks. That would be a challenge for the drivers and teams!! That ain't happening soon though. So for now, some tracks will gain and some will lose dates. And the criteria will be how the seats sell for the events........that's the nature of a business for profit like NASCAR. :)
 
T

TonyB

Guest
Originally posted by CypressTrout@Feb 22 2004, 06:08 PM
Atlanta never seels out & is never in jeopardy of losing a race.
Big difference in not selling Atlanta and not selling out Rockingham and Darlington. Atlanta has a lot more seats than either.

A lot more tickets sold for the Atlanta races than any of the races at Darlington or Rockingham.

Can't find the numbers right now, but Atlanta holds a lot more folks.
 
G

Gollum

Guest
I like the idea of 36 races and 36 tracks. Give Nashville and Kentucky dates. Doth of them are just hours driving distance of me. :lol:
 
E

EatMorePossum

Guest
Give Rockingham a May or April date, and watch it sell out too.

Give Kansas a February date and watch how many empty seats there are.

Give any track on the circuit the week after Daytona 500 and see if it sells out.
 
4

4xchampncountin

Guest
That is a very good point as usual EMP.

February is a terrible date for your only race. Right after Daytona is ever worse.

I'm sure the area being oversaturated with race tracks is it's biggest problem though. Places like Kansas, California, etc are going to sell out simply because they have no competition for NASCAR dollars. If someone in Cali wants to see a Cup race they can go there or drive or fly tons of miles.
 
T

TonyB

Guest
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 22 2004, 10:29 PM
Give Rockingham a May or April date, and watch it sell out too.

Give Kansas a February date and watch how many empty seats there are.

Give any track on the circuit the week after Daytona 500 and see if it sells out.
I doubt it..

I'm sure there are folks who can afford to attend tons of races in a year, but the great masses can't. I'm stretching it to do three races this year. Of course, I have to overnight it or do serious travel, but I still think most folks can't afford several races in a bunch regardless.

May would have the race around the Charlotte weekends.

April would have it competing with Marinsville.

Put a race in Kansas in February and it will still be a sell out, because it is the only chance most of those folks have to go to a race.

And I bet just about any track outside of the South East would sell out the week after Daytona.

The problem here is oversaturation of the market versus the price scale.

But, regardless of that, the race is in FEBRUARY and it fails to sale out a small numbers of seats relative to the other tracks on the curcuit. I can't find a seat count, but I think it's in the 70,000 range.

Atlanta is in the 150,000 range.

I think the Rockingham races are above average, but, the fact is, if the fans don't go to them in the same numbers as they go elsewhere, then the race will go elsewhere.

If the fans had been packing the stands over the years, ISC would have expanded the facility to accomodate more fannies. Instead, they can move a date to California and sell 130,000 more tickets than thye would at the Rock.

That's a whole lot of money to turn down.
 
N

N2racin44

Guest
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 22 2004, 09:29 PM
Give Kansas a February date and watch how many empty seats there are.

We get a freaking Truck race in the middle of summer where it has been 100 plus degrees each year and we still sell it out. February would not be a problem. In fact it was 64 degrees here yesterday.
 
E

EatMorePossum

Guest
All I'm trying to say is the week after the 500 is not an optimal date. A large percentage of your potential crowd went whole hog and did Daytona. February in NC can be and often is an unpleasant time to be outdoors.

I still say put Rockinham in a more temperate slot and it'll sell.
 

majestyx

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
8,176
Points
408
Location
Burleson, TX
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 23 2004, 11:04 AM
All I'm trying to say is the week after the 500 is not an optimal date. A large percentage of your potential crowd went whole hog and did Daytona. February in NC can be and often is an unpleasant time to be outdoors.

I still say put Rockinham in a more temperate slot and it'll sell.
I agree, EMP.


I have said it before, and I'll say it again. I would love for Texas to have another date. But NOT at the expense of a track like Darlington or Rockingham. And, we all know that the weather hasn't been the most kind to the race or racefans here in Texas for the race we do have.
 

kat2220

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 11, 2002
Messages
17,047
Points
0
Location
Marietta, GA
Just a little suggestion from the Kat....try the week AFTER Daytona as the off week. I really would hate to see Rockingham and/or Darlington go the way of N Wilksboro just because of the $$$ and demographics in the area. They are great tracks and deserve support. Don't forget that The Rock is in a low population area with few amenities in the area for the fans, and the access to the track is not the best.
 
G

Gollum

Guest
Nascar is in the buisness to sell tickets. If The Rock can't sell tickets then it will go. You may not like it or I may not. But that's life. If you have a store not making money you close it. :(
 
S

Splunge

Guest
Nascar is in the buisness to sell tickets. If The Rock can't sell tickets then it will go. You may not like it or I may not. But that's life. If you have a store not making money you close it.

Sad but true...

Sad doesn't alway equal bad tho....

As someone who lives 9 hours from the NEAREST Nextel Race, hearing about "SATURATED" areas kinda makes me feel left out! :angry:

I would love to see some areas in the West get more races! Give us the winter races! It's always sunny and dry here! B)

As NASCAR becomes a more popular sport, more people will want to attend races (I'm still a TV only fan....hoping that changes). So the races will go to those with $'s to get the best returns....

A race here (PPIR) would definitly sell out becuase we have no 'choice' about which races fit into my schedule this year! We'll take whatever we can get!

:cheers:
 
E

Eagle1

Guest
I'd love to see a Cup race at PPIR. I'd have to travel now cause I've moved, but that is a beautiful track! I went and seen a Busch race there the first season it opened.
 

de7xwcc

Anarchist
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
2,039
Points
378
Location
east TN mountians
Another point of view, just goes to show people that watch on TV want to see a good race.


The overnight TV ratings for Sunday's Rock race were a 6.3, the same number as last year's overnights. Typically the actual ratings go up a little when the nationwide total is announced with the smaller markets.

A 6.3 indicates approximately 6.8 million people watched the race on, compared with 50,000 at the track, so how signifigant are those empty 10,000 seats. The sponsors want to get thier cars seen by consumers who might buy thier products. They will never be able to build a race track that sells 6.8 million tickets.

For comparison's sake, last year's Las Vegas race had a 5.9 rating, so even though they sold more tickets, less people saw the race. Atlanta had a 6.0 last spring. So apparently NASCAR fans are discerning and more likely to watch a race at the Rock than at Vegas. The Fontana race last year got a 5.3 final rating which means approximately 600,000 less people saw the race on TV than watched the Rock Sunday. Is Fontana going to be able to sell 600,000 more seats than Rockingham?
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 24 2004, 08:23 AM
Another point of view, just goes to show people that watch on TV want to see a good race.


The overnight TV ratings for Sunday's Rock race were a 6.3, the same number as last year's overnights. Typically the actual ratings go up a little when the nationwide total is announced with the smaller markets.

A 6.3 indicates approximately 6.8 million people watched the race on, compared with 50,000 at the track, so how signifigant are those empty 10,000 seats. The sponsors want to get thier cars seen by consumers who might buy thier products. They will never be able to build a race track that sells 6.8 million tickets.

For comparison's sake, last year's Las Vegas race had a 5.9 rating, so even though they sold more tickets, less people saw the race. Atlanta had a 6.0 last spring. So apparently NASCAR fans are discerning and more likely to watch a race at the Rock than at Vegas. The Fontana race last year got a 5.3 final rating which means approximately 600,000 less people saw the race on TV than watched the Rock Sunday. Is Fontana going to be able to sell 600,000 more seats than Rockingham?
Great use of statistics. But where does NASCAR benefit from TV ratings verses dollars generated by spectators in the grandstands? I believe NBC/TNT, FOX/FX and NASCAR are entered into a contract that has numbers meaningful TV viewership........not fan attendance at the track. The tracks have a contract with NASCAR that have numbers meaningful to tickets sold........not TV viewers.

Great stats......but 6.3 TV rating just doesn't relate to 1/6th of the grandstands without butts in them. Apples and oranges..........pickles and olives. They are meaningless in this context.
 
E

EatMorePossum

Guest
I think the point he made was exposure. If I own Subway, I don't care how a person sees my logo so long as they see it. If my investment in sponsoring both a car and an event doesn't pay dividends, I walk. If enough sponsors walk, it won't matter how many people buy tickets, the bills ain't getting paid.

Put another way, you have a baseball stadium. 50,000 people come to a Saturday night game, and another million watch it on TV. I own a baseball stadium. 9000 people came to my Saturday night game, but 2 million watched on TV. The sponsor of your stadium, Tinactin, was exposed to 1,050,000 people. My sponsor, Zocor, was exposed to 2,009,000. Whose sponsor is happier, and who can charge more for naming rights to the stadium?

But I could be wrong.
 
E

Eagle1

Guest
I believe DE Wrangler hit the nail right on the head. In this instance NASCAR isn't concerned with the TV viewership, it has that deal locked up and is raking in the money for it. In thier greed now they're concerned how much money they're losing getting their share from 50,000 people in the seats instead of 100,000 - 130,000 butts in the seats. They get their cut of the TV money regardless at this point, but darn how many hotdogs, drinks, souveniers etc. have they not got money for that they could.
 
D

dragonlady424

Guest
Well, De Wrangler,and Eagle 1, danged if I don't agree with the both of you!!!!!

More' s the pity!!!!! <_< <_< :p :p :p :p
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
I don't know of any stadium, track or even a park that can hold just one a million people at one time. Why are we comparing TV viewers with spectators in the grand stands? NASCAR is lucrative............so what? One way NASCAR has become lucrative is that it hasn't continued practices that don't produce. A venue that is consistently produces at 5/6th of it's potential is going to have step it up or lose it. There are too many others out there that are able to do better..........it's called competition. The Rock is in trouble.........not for it's excitement but for it's production of dollars.

But, I'll cede your point that one day NASCAR may just step a little far and the fans will rebel. But I don't think they are there yet.....we'll know when it happens and then things will take a different direction.
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
:D You could be right FT!! But, I've been where you are at a few times since I started following these fake stock cars and they still have me hook, line and sinker!! I'm a junkie..........I'll work for a ticket!! :cheers:
 
F

Flametamer

Guest
Understood, My own situation is such that I will just go back to the dirt tracks on Sundays. Sprint Cars and Dirt Late Models are my first passion anyway so I will nary miss those taxicabs. :lol:
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
I'd have to go back to those 1/4 mile sprint races......but man, that'd be hard!! I blink slower than those guys complete races........I'd miss most of them!! :blink:
 

de7xwcc

Anarchist
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
2,039
Points
378
Location
east TN mountians
DE my point is that TV viewers like good racing not boring cookie cutter BS. the TV ratings are less at the CC tracks therefore sponsors get less. i really don't think the fox or nbc really care how many people come to the track it's how many watch on TV.
 
S

Splunge

Guest
Sure, TV viewership and actual race attendance are different...

But NASCAR still has that "It's a southern redneck sport" cloud hanging over it.

Moving races around allows people to see this isn't really true, and therefore increase the number of fans....

You can't really expect people to be fans of something if never get a chance to experience it first hand...(or at least be around people who have...)

I liken it to Harley Davidson...the typical HD owner is a white collar, 40 something guy who makes over 85G's a year...not really the mean biker image that most people think of...

But if HD relied on 'mean bikers' for all their income, we'd all be saying Harley who???
 
S

Splunge

Guest
It makes the rest of 'rednecks' who live elsewhere feel left out... :(

;) :cheers:
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
Originally posted by de7xwcc@Feb 25 2004, 05:50 AM
DE my point is that TV viewers like good racing not boring cookie cutter BS.
I'm a TV viewer............so far I've only been able to attend one race a year (California......though that may change beginning this year :) ). And I like those cookie cutter BS races too!! Let me give you my order of favorite types of tracks: Short, 1 1/2 to 2 milers, superspeedways (Dega, Daytona, Pocono....in that order, BTW), intermediate tracks (you know Rockingham, Darlington etc.) then finally the road courses. So you see, I'm not overly concerned about the Rock or even Darlington for that matter........but it's a shame that those two tracks haven't been able to fill the seats to their potential. A lot of fans do place those tracks higher on their lists than I do. But that's each to their own......I'm not making judgments on those fans.

However, my point is and remains: You cannot compare TV viewership to track attendance. If the locals want the track to keep what they have, then they need to support those tracks to guarantee NASCAR will not move the date to someplace that will support the track. As TV viewers, we have no control.............unless we purchase transportation to and from the races. And I, for one, cannot afford that. To say "cookie cutters" don't provide good races is just not true...........if they didn't, then why do they fill the stands to capacity and the broadcasters continue to carry them live? If it isn't profitable, then it will not continue.

Oh yeah, I'm a redneck too!! :) Don't judge me by my location.........I've spent more of my life in the South than most of you are old. I love the racing NASCAR provides........it ain't perfect and there are lots of things I'd prefer they do than what they actually do. But, it just hasn't left me out in the cold yet. If I had my way, all Cup races would be on two types of tracks..............shorts (with about half of those on dirt) and on your so called "cookie cutters". But that won't happen simply because the fans would go away and then I'd not be able to watch any of it.
 

de7xwcc

Anarchist
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
2,039
Points
378
Location
east TN mountians
guess we will have to agree to disagree, the cookie cutters bore me to death, but at least i get a good nap on sunday afternoon.
 
E

Eagle1

Guest
DE Wrangler 2, again I'm in total agreement with you.

BTW, are you going to the Fontana night race this year? I am and it might be fun to meet up.
 

barelypure

Spectator
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
6,695
Points
0
There have been many good points made. Rockingham is only 6 hours from Daytona. In the scheme of things that is not enough for both tracks to be a draw. If they listen to Rockingham and give the 2nd race to a West or MidWest track and move them to a different slot that is away from the Darlington and Charlotte dates they may sell more tickets. (The off week this weekend is due to leap year. Normally we would be racing).
Another solution would be to copy the configuration of Rockingham and put it somewhere else where you could build the stands to 170K+. It has historically been a good race especially when compared to some of the cookie cutter 1 groove tracks. I absolutely hate those.
 
D

DE_Wrangler_2

Guest
Originally posted by Eagle1@Feb 26 2004, 08:56 AM
BTW, are you going to the Fontana night race this year? I am and it might be fun to meet up.
We are considering it. We couldn't buy tickets to that race when we got our tickets to the May race (which we got in hand through the U.S. mail just the other day!! :D )......... we were told they weren't on sale yet. But we could have gotten them if we bought a season ticket package.........hmmmm, a little expensive since we would not likely go to any of the open wheel races or their "concerts"!! Only hesitancy is I know how hot it is in Fontana that time of the year!!! :D If we do go it'll be on the Metrolink.........man, I just hate traffic!! Cutie and I will let you know. It does sound like fun..........plus, it is a Cup race too!! :D

We like to sit low just out of turn four........like section 62 or near and row 10. You have that huge plasma TV right across from you so you don't miss anything on the back stretch!! :cheers:
 
Top Bottom