SiriusXM's NASCAR Radio - Today's, not so hidden, agenda.....

dpkimmel2001

dpkimmel2001

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
36,139
Points
1,033
Location
Western PA
I'm thoroughly convinced that these SiriusXM NASCAR Radio hosts are occasionally given topics for discussion by the power's that be @ NASCAR. NASCAR's unofficial Fan Council. Gauge the response. Many of the things that they tend to push and make the topic of the day tend to happen in the near future. Sometimes that scares the hell outta me. Today's another one of those days.

Today's pushed topic..... Shorter races & format changes to the races. Maybe even multi-part races. A mid race break or even two shorter races on a given day. Those first ideas make me fear even more for the sports future. Two races on a day for the same price..... Now that's one that I might be able to go for. Personally I'll never attend another race should they shorten the product. I'm never going to buy a ticket to the Martinsville 400. Now, should they shorten that Martinsville 500 to two Martinsville 250's..... I'll be there.
 
Even scarier is that NASCAR Radio tends to take only the callers that agree with the agenda. A dissenting opinion sneaks in there every now and then, but the hosts usually do their damndest to humiliate the caller when that happens.
 
ToyYoda said:
Even scarier is that NASCAR Radio tends to take only the callers that agree with the agenda. A dissenting opinion sneaks in there every now and then, but the hosts usually do their damndest to humiliate the caller when that happens.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the Rule of Thumb across the board. People like to pin that only on Moody but that's simply not the case.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Pretty much the Rule of Thumb across the board. People like to pin that only on Moody but that's simply not the case.
Click to expand...
I think he's the worst about it but yeah they definitely all do it.

I find myself poking holes in Moody's rebuttals all the time but never bother to call in.

I've actually heard him toss the idea of shorter races around a handful of times over the last 6 months or so. We have heard this being discussed for a while though so that's not surprising. These events last as long as your typical football or baseball game, I don't see the problem.
 
They have a 1.5 mile problem, but they are too stubborn, or greedy, to do anything about it. IMO, not a single one of those tracks(Kansas, charlotte, Fort Worth) deserves a second date.

So if they absolutely feel the need to butcher their sport with more gimmicks, start with the Texas or Kansas spring race, get an earful from the fans that wasted their money on a ticket, then tell whoever keeps coming up with these hair brained schemes to sit in the corner and shut up.
 
Don't almost all races already fit within a 3 hour TV broadcast window anyways? And the schedule with sponsors/distance has already been announced. I don't get the point and I don't see it happening.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I'm thoroughly convinced that these SiriusXM NASCAR Radio hosts are occasionally given topics for discussion by the power's that be @ NASCAR. NASCAR's unofficial Fan Council. Gauge the response. Many of the things that they tend to push and make the topic of the day tend to happen in the near future. Sometimes that scares the hell outta me. Today's another one of those days.

Today's pushed topic..... Shorter races & format changes to the races. Maybe even multi-part races. A mid race break or even two shorter races on a given day. Those first ideas make me fear even more for the sports future. Two races on a day for the same price..... Now that's one that I might be able to go for. Personally I'll never attend another race should they shorten the product. I'm never going to buy a ticket to the Martinsville 400. Now, should they shorten that Martinsville 500 to two Martinsville 250's..... I'll be there.
Click to expand...

The Truck Series used to have a halfway break.

If NASCAR got away from the brobdingnagians, they wouldn't need gimmicks to enhance the racing.
 
Certain XM hosts seem to have the agenda, bought and paid for by NASCAR.
 
It is more about promoting Nascar as a brand than it is about the racing itself.
Nascar owns the rights to the programs, and they are there to serve nascar first.
The loud "Godfather" is an owned tool of Nascar as well.

A state run news agency would not be anymore contorted at selling a one sided story. They essentially own the reporting culture and and want the masses to buy into the agenda as well.
 
It sounds like they looking at some Indycar stunts; two shorter races over 2 days at the same track and points for each race. Or rediscovering their roots with heat racing. There is nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but they run the risk of loosing lifelong fans for some bandwagon fans.
 
Zerkfitting said:
It sounds like they looking at some Indycar stunts; two shorter races over 2 days at the same track and points for each race. Or rediscovering their roots with heat racing. There is nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but they run the risk of loosing lifelong fans for some bandwagon fans.
Click to expand...
I don't follow Indy but if were to attend a NASCAR race weekend that included two shorter Cup races in the same day, I'd be all for that. Twin 250's @ Martinsville would be a ticket I'd purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdj
AndyMarquisLive said:
The Truck Series used to have a halfway break.

If NASCAR got away from the brobdingnagians, they wouldn't need gimmicks to enhance the racing.
Click to expand...
I forgot to tell you, I'm playing a drinking game in 2017. Every time someone posts the 'B-word', I have to down a fifth of Cuervo. :tongue:
 
Zerkfitting said:
It sounds like they looking at some Indycar stunts; two shorter races over 2 days at the same track and points for each race. Or rediscovering their roots with heat racing. There is nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but they run the risk of loosing lifelong fans for some bandwagon fans.
Click to expand...
I don't think the races that Indy runs on the 2-fer-1 weekends are shorter than what they run on their single-race street course races. I don't have their schedule memorized but I recall they're the same length, and that they only do it on street courses that tie up facilities not dedicated to racing (city streets, parks, etc.).

But I've been forgetful before. Corrections welcomed.
 
Acs said:
Don't almost all races already fit within a 3 hour TV broadcast window anyways? And the schedule with sponsors/distance has already been announced. I don't get the point and I don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

That is a good question and one I don't have an answer for. I know if the race broadcast is scheduled at 1:00 pm the drop of the green is advertised at around 1:16 pm but doesn't normally get started until 1:21 pm or so. So that would leave about 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete each race and I would guess some events would fall within that window while others would miss it by a mile.

I don't watch the post race stuff but from what I gather it can go on for sometime after the checkers so I don't know if that is counted into the 3 hour window. IDK what is important about post race stuff as normally the NFL and NHL don't have to talk with a bunch of players and coaches and pepper them with the mundane questions unless it is the championship game.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I don't follow Indy but if were to attend a NASCAR race weekend that included two shorter Cup races in the same day, I'd be all for that. Twin 250's @ Martinsville would be a ticket I'd purchase.
Click to expand...

I would like that with the top 20 restarting grid inverted for the second race.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
... I know if the race broadcast is scheduled at 1:00 pm the drop of the green is advertised at around 1:16 pm but doesn't normally get started until 1:21 pm or so. ...
Click to expand...
If I could make only one of all the changes I could think of making to NASCAR's broadcasts, scheduling the green flag at five minutes past the hour would be it; three minutes past if I thought it was logistically possible.
 
The problem with a sports entity owning their channel is objectivity. I don't watch a lot of the NFL Network. But do any of their regular contributors ever criticize the league or the commissioner? I don't know. My guess probably not.

I live in a college town. We have several sports radio stations and shows that mainly revolve around that university. One station has a show where the two hosts work for the radio broadcasts of the university football games. They are basically paid employees of the university. They do offer some critical opinions of the coaches and any player that gets into legal trouble. But it's very rare they say anything bad about the school, the AD, or anyone tied to the school. The nickname of the station in town is state-run radio. It's not good to have someone own their own show/channel.
 
MRM said:
The problem with a sports entity owning their channel is objectivity. I don't watch a lot of the NFL Network. But do any of their regular contributors ever criticize the league or the commissioner? I don't know. My guess probably not. ...
Click to expand...
It's not like any sport's 'broadcast partners' are particularly objective, esp. when delivering content on the programs that directly cover that sport. You want objectivity? Look to a source that DOESN'T have any coverage contracts or other ties to the sport i question.

Of course, most networks give priority to those sports they cover over those they don't. For example, how ESPN only covers NASCAR when it has a contract. Why talk about a non-contract sport on the magazine shows if it isn't going to result in increased viewer numbers of the sports the network does broadcast, and may even result in viewers watching those non-contract sports on another network?

Oh, and I live in one of those towns where the local media live and die on the resident college team. I remember one letter to the paper complaining about a new ESPN affiliate because it dared to waste air time on topics besides the local Chickens. The writer actually used the phrase 'our boys' in a serious, non-ironic fashion.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
It's not like any sport's 'broadcast partners' are particularly objective, esp. when delivering content on the programs that directly cover that sport. You want objectivity? Look to a source that DOESN'T have any coverage contracts or other ties to the sport i question.

Of course, most networks give priority to those sports they cover over those they don't. For example, how ESPN only covers NASCAR when it has a contract. Why talk about a non-contract sport on the magazine shows if it isn't going to result in increased viewer numbers of the sports the network does broadcast, and may even result in viewers watching those non-contract sports on another network?

Oh, and I live in one of those towns where the local media live and die on the resident college team. I remember one letter to the paper complaining about a new ESPN affiliate because it dared to waste air time on topics besides the local Chickens. The writer actually used the phrase 'our boys' in a serious, non-ironic fashion.
Click to expand...


Clemson_University_Tiger_Paw_logo.svg.png
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I don't follow Indy but if were to attend a NASCAR race weekend that included two shorter Cup races in the same day, I'd be all for that. Twin 250's @ Martinsville would be a ticket I'd purchase.
Click to expand...
I'm actually surprised that you'd be in support of that.

How would they work it tho? Award 2 race winners, paying points for both and 2 chase births if 2 non previous winners were to win? Cause if you aren't doing all of that then there would be no use in splitting it, at that point it kinda just becomes another gimmicky race with a break in the middle like the Clash or All Star race.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
If I could make only one of all the changes I could think of making to NASCAR's broadcasts, scheduling the green flag at five minutes past the hour would be it; three minutes past if I thought it was logistically possible.
Click to expand...

In the 80's and 90's ESPN sometimes used to sign on for the broadcast with the cars on the parade laps and I can't recall a time when the drivers weren't at least in their cars at sign on. IDK how much time is devoted to pre-race programming but I would assume it is between 60-90 minutes plus the 20 minutes or so they dick around during the actual broadcast time. For the life of me I can't fathom what could be talked about in pre-race that is in anyway pertinent or informative. In stick and ball you have multiple games and match ups, rivalries, injuries, new players or players new to a team and so on and so forth so there is plenty to discuss.
 
AdoubleU24 said:
I'm actually surprised that you'd be in support of that.

How would they work it tho? Award 2 race winners, paying points for both and 2 chase births if 2 non previous winners were to win? Cause if you aren't doing all of that then there would be no use in splitting it, at that point it kinda just becomes another gimmicky race with a break in the middle like the Clash or All Star race.
Click to expand...

I think Nascar is into full "baffle with BS" mode as no one knows quite what to do in order to restore the series to health. Nascar is already full of gimmicks so they would have no trouble figuring out what to do with multiple races and multiple winners in the same day.
 
Zerkfitting said:
It sounds like they looking at some Indycar stunts; two shorter races over 2 days at the same track and points for each race. Or rediscovering their roots with heat racing. There is nothing wrong with exploring new ideas but they run the risk of loosing lifelong fans for some bandwagon fans.
Click to expand...

There's no point in having heat racing as it basically is right now. 75% is very passive followed by the last quarter being much more aggressive racing. Heat racing is the same way, pretty passive in the heats followed by aggression in the A Main
 
We basically already have a mid-race break with the caution almost always being thrown at just about half way for the hotdog wrappers. It was at least evident to me that they were trying to put in a halftime caution.
 
None of this matters without a compelling rivalry. There have been a few feuds here but that's it. The Jeff Gordon vs Dale Earnhardt rivalry was lightning in a bottle and caused the sport to explode to unsustainable levels. When Dale Jr failed to materialize as a competitive rival to Jeff, attendance and ratings started to crater. NASCAR isn't done shrinking but I think it will get to a point where it finally just plateaus. From there its up to all involved to figure out how to turn a profit.
 
LouieLouie said:
We basically already have a mid-race break with the caution almost always being thrown at just about half way for the hotdog wrappers. It was at least evident to me that they were trying to put in a halftime caution.
Click to expand...

Some of those phantom debris cautions can last 10-12 minutes from the time the yellow waves until they get back to green so your point is taken. Those long lapses for bogus or near bogus cautions need to be eliminated as many people in today's day and age won't accept it.
 
I agree that NASCAR uses these shows and other leaked reports to float trial balloons to gauge reaction and introduce an idea. I'm not sure how seriously to take these rumblings. They have made extreme changes in some ways, but are remarkably stodgy and stubborn about making significant changes in the schedule, for instance.

Split events with two main races is not a concept I like for oval racing, but I wouldn't lead a revolt over it. What are they going to do, go full motocross style and have an "overall" winner of the weekend based on best average finish between the two mains? I don't care if most of the races, save the big traditional ones, are shorter. I just want them to be better, and I don't equate quantity with quality.

Anyway, 2018 is going to be very interesting. If they are actually intent on making sweeping format changes to individual events, that's when it will start. If the 2018 schedule looks much the same as it has for the past 15-20 years, then this is bluster.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I don't think the races that Indy runs on the 2-fer-1 weekends are shorter than what they run on their single-race street course races. I don't have their schedule memorized but I recall they're the same length, and that they only do it on street courses that tie up facilities not dedicated to racing (city streets, parks, etc.).

But I've been forgetful before. Corrections welcomed.
Click to expand...
The Belle Isle dual races are as long, or longer than the Long Beach and Toronto races. Not far off from the St. Pete distance. They're definitely two full races.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
View attachment 23043
Click to expand...
I get the reference, but I don't get your point. If it was a taunt, I don't care about either school; I wasn't brought up in SC. (Indeed, I don't care about college athletics in any form.)

IF absolutely FORCED to choose, I side with Clemson. The Chickens have a history of opposing almost any other form of sports coming to Columbia. This included turning down a request from the Carolina Panthers to play their first season at the Chickens' stadium while the Panthers' new one was being built. The city was livid over the lost tourism dollars and national publicity. Clemson welcomed them with open arms, replacing half the orange paw logos on campus with Panther blue ones. I'd probably have attended more games that season if they'd been played locally instead of a 3.5 hour drive away, but I did learn that Clemson had a much more attractive stadium in a more scenic setting. (Let's face it, regardless of my opinion of the team, the Chickens' stadium looks like an upside-down ****roach.) The Chickens also ran a minor league hockey team out of town by reneging on an agreement to let it play in their new basketball palace. They also refused to discuss sharing the costs of building a new stadium with an existing minor league baseball team, which soon left town for lack of funding for a stand-alone facility. So my preference has nothing to do with either school's performance on the field, and everything to do with how one has treated the local sports community off the field.
 
If nascar fans were flocking to the idea of shorter races, then xfinity & truck races would have a packed house.

we all know how every lower series race is sold out :sarcasm:

Nascar obviously has no idea what their own major malfunction is.
 
I have no problem with the Sirius Nascar channel . It is not supposed to be the anti - Nascar channel , it is meant to be the pro Nascar channel . They would be stupid to alienate their mainly pro Nascar listeners by having an anti-Nascar bias . Same can be said for the golf channel , the NFL channel or the NHL channel . I take it with a grain of salt , they are cheerleaders . so what ? If you tune into NESN or WGN or any homer network , you won't find much negativity either. Kinda like tuning into Fox News and expecting unbiased news. No big deal , not gonna happen.
 
^ agree. Some of the folks who call in to these shows should probably be euthanized.

Perhaps a group of Internet NASCAR forum critics will band together to form an alternative to what's currently available.
 
gnomesayin said:
I agree that NASCAR uses these shows and other leaked reports to float trial balloons to gauge reaction and introduce an idea. I'm not sure how seriously to take these rumblings. They have made extreme changes in some ways, but are remarkably stodgy and stubborn about making significant changes in the schedule, for instance.

Split events with two main races is not a concept I like for oval racing, but I wouldn't lead a revolt over it. What are they going to do, go full motocross style and have an "overall" winner of the weekend based on best average finish between the two mains? I don't care if most of the races, save the big traditional ones, are shorter. I just want them to be better, and I don't equate quantity with quality.

Anyway, 2018 is going to be very interesting. If they are actually intent on making sweeping format changes to individual events, that's when it will start. If the 2018 schedule looks much the same as it has for the past 15-20 years, then this is bluster.
Click to expand...

For some folks quantity is quality.

Charlie Spencer said:
I get the reference, but I don't get your point. If it was a taunt, I don't care about either school; I wasn't brought up in SC. (Indeed, I don't care about college athletics in any form.)

IF absolutely FORCED to choose, I side with Clemson. The Chickens have a history of opposing almost any other form of sports coming to Columbia. This included turning down a request from the Carolina Panthers to play their first season at the Chickens' stadium while the Panthers' new one was being built. The city was livid over the lost tourism dollars and national publicity. Clemson welcomed them with open arms, replacing half the orange paw logos on campus with Panther blue ones. I'd probably have attended more games that season if they'd been played locally instead of a 3.5 hour drive away, but I did learn that Clemson had a much more attractive stadium in a more scenic setting. (Let's face it, regardless of my opinion of the team, the Chickens' stadium looks like an upside-down ****roach.) The Chickens also ran a minor league hockey team out of town by reneging on an agreement to let it play in their new basketball palace. They also refused to discuss sharing the costs of building a new stadium with an existing minor league baseball team, which soon left town for lack of funding for a stand-alone facility. So my preference has nothing to do with either school's performance on the field, and everything to do with how one has treated the local sports community off the field.
Click to expand...

I meant no harm or taunt I just like the Tigers logo.

ted@economy said:
I have no problem with the Sirius Nascar channel . It is not supposed to be the anti - Nascar channel , it is meant to be the pro Nascar channel . They would be stupid to alienate their mainly pro Nascar listeners by having an anti-Nascar bias . Same can be said for the golf channel , the NFL channel or the NHL channel . I take it with a grain of salt , they are cheerleaders . so what ? If you tune into NESN or WGN or any homer network , you won't find much negativity either. Kinda like tuning into Fox News and expecting unbiased news. No big deal , not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to live in Pleasantville I would rent a Tobey Maguire video.

aunty dive said:
^ agree. Some of the folks who call in to these shows should probably be euthanized.

Perhaps a group of Internet NASCAR forum critics will band together to form an alternative to what's currently available.
Click to expand...

From what Ted described there is no value with the Nascar channel as they are just shills for Brian and company. What benefit does the listener get from that?
 
ted@economy said:
I have no problem with the Sirius Nascar channel . It is not supposed to be the anti - Nascar channel , it is meant to be the pro Nascar channel . They would be stupid to alienate their mainly pro Nascar listeners by having an anti-Nascar bias . Same can be said for the golf channel , the NFL channel or the NHL channel . I take it with a grain of salt , they are cheerleaders . so what ? If you tune into NESN or WGN or any homer network , you won't find much negativity either. Kinda like tuning into Fox News and expecting unbiased news. No big deal , not gonna happen.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between raising questions about perceived issues and actively being against something. I'm definitely pro-NASCAR if we define NASCAR as an organizing body for a defined format of auto racing, but I still disagree with some of the sanctioning body's decisions.

I'm not a Sirius subscriber, and nothing in the discussion has given me a reason to sign up. I don't listen to the existing free talking head shows on the tube, so I'm not likely to pay money to hear more of the party line.
 
I like the channel and it's the main reason that I subscribe to the service. It was the reason that I purchased a XM Radio way back in the early days of the NASCAR Channel. Back then the only hosts were Claire B and Tim Farley. There were only two live shows on during the day along with replays of races. It has evolved to be so much more than that. It may not be for everyone but I enjoy the hell out of it just like posting on this forum.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I like the channel and it's the main reason that I subscribe to the service. It was the reason that I purchased a XM Radio way back in the early days of the NASCAR Channel. Back then the only hosts were Claire B and Tim Farley. There were only two live shows on during the day along with replays of races. It has evolved to be so much more than that. It may not be for everyone but I enjoy the hell out of it just like posting on this forum.
Click to expand...
I agree , though I no longer subscribe , I only used it for the Nascar channel and was really pleased to get current news and rumor . This forum has (and will always have ) all the negativity that I require .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom