Upcoming Nascar Changes Impact on You

Charlie Spencer said:
Hard to say when nobody knows what the deal is yet.
Click to expand...
This. How anyone could answer Skoal's vague non-specific question is beyond me. As it stands, this thread is nothing more than an invitation to rehash all the other threads on the topic. Format changes sound ominous to me, but I'd need something specific to form an opinion.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I am a minority of one on this issue but for me the worst thing Nascar ever did was introduce a pit road speed followed by giving back unearned laps. To me timed races or mandatory cautions don't even raise an eyebrow compared to those things.
Click to expand...
I've asked before and you have always declined to answer, so I'll ask again... why do you feel that way? Why is a pit speed limit so bad? Why is the lucky dog rule worse than racing through a crash scene at full speed? And how is that more anticompetitive than a "gentlemans agreement" that is in the hands of one driver to honor or not as he chooses at the moment?
 
LewTheShoe said:
This. How anyone could answer Skoal's vague non-specific question is beyond me. As it stands, this thread is nothing more than an invitation to rehash all the other threads on the topic. Format changes sound ominous to me, but I'd need something specific to form an opinion.
Click to expand...

IDK if there will be any changes at all but if so do you think shorter timed races would be to your liking? Do you think scheduled caution periods would be good bad or indifferent to you? How about having heat races with a shorter main race?
 
LewTheShoe said:
I've asked before and you have always declined to answer, so I'll ask again... why do you feel that way? Why is a pit speed limit so bad? Why is the lucky dog rule worse than racing through a crash scene at full speed? And how is that more anticompetitive than a "gentlemans agreement" that is in the hands of one driver to honor or not as he chooses at the moment?
Click to expand...

I have answered these questions several times and am sorry you missed them. Either way it is not important as the ship has sailed and apparently we are now on to caution clocks and timed events.
 
^ Yet another decline to answer, same as before.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I've asked before and you have always declined to answer, so I'll ask again... why do you feel that way? Why is a pit speed limit so bad? Why is the lucky dog rule worse than racing through a crash scene at full speed? And how is that more anticompetitive than a "gentlemans agreement" that is in the hands of one driver to honor or not as he chooses at the moment?
Click to expand...

I'll chime in and say that not having a pit road speed limit strikes me as grossly irresponsible. I don't follow your logic on that one Skoal. When I was a little kid, I road around in my parents' vehicles with no seat belt on, let alone a child seat. That doesn't mean it's okay for me to do that with my kids with what we know today.

The Lucky Dog and Wave Around are not worse than racing through a crash at full speed. The latter is unacceptable from a basic safety standpoint (as is no pit speed limit), and the former is unacceptable because they are phony methods of keeping competition closer than it actually is. This is especially true when combined with fake cautions and the coming scheduled cautions. Only in warped NASCAR land are those the only choices and is it assumed that racers should be gifted laps back without earning them. The gentleman's agreement was a joke too, but mostly a relic of an era in which the gaps between the cars and drivers were so much greater that the leader could do that knowing that the competitors he was letting back on the lead lap were no threat to him.
 
Last edited:
The fact that NASCAR believed they had to replace the gentleman's agreement, which was basically part of the unwritten 'code' among competitors that takes shape in any sport or competition, with an actual rule guaranteed to gift laps back is representative of the whole problem with how bendable and unprincipled they are. In many sports, it is part of the unofficial code that you don't run up the score or embarrass your opponents unnecessarily. That doesn't mean the officials need to make a rule against it. This is what NASCAR doesn't get, or more accurately doesn't care to get, because in reality it was just an opportunity to "enhance the show". It's funny how I can stomach the Lucky Dog rule because it feels so relatively harmless compared to the greater manipulations that are coming. Yet when I actually think about it, it's still ludicrous, and its existence and acceptance guaranteed that much worse would come after it. They'll always go further once they know they can.
 
Fordracing7 said:
Regardless of the changes ill have to live with them. Im addicted to the sport and would not be able to "choose" to stop watching I just cant. I am like most and hate most of the current changes and formats etc. But it is what it is. if it was up to me I would prefer pre 2004
Click to expand...
^
This, right here.
 
^ The lucky dog pass was a compromise solution introduced instead of racing back to the S/F line, an alternative way to regain a lap when racing to the line and the gentleman's agreement were ended. That is where it came from.

One can like or dislike the rule... I personally don't care for it. But it's ridiculous to climb up on a high horse and try to make the lucky dog some evil philosophical monster that signifies Nascar malfeasance. Philosophically, I'd have more problem with the gentleman's agreement, as that allows one driver to grant a lap to a teammate or friend, but refuse it to another competitor. That smells.
gnomesayin said:
The fact that NASCAR believed they had to replace the gentleman's agreement, which was basically part of the unwritten 'code' among competitors that takes shape in any sport or competition, with an actual rule guaranteed to gift laps back is representative of the whole problem with how bendable and unprincipled they are. In many sports, it is part of the unofficial code that you don't run up the score or embarrass your opponents unnecessarily. That doesn't mean the officials need to make a rule against it. This is what NASCAR doesn't get, or more accurately doesn't care to get, because in reality it was just an opportunity to "enhance the show". It's funny how I can stomach the Lucky Dog rule because it feels so relatively harmless compared to the greater manipulations that are coming. Yet when I actually think about it, it's still ludicrous, and its existence and acceptance guaranteed that much worse would come after it. They'll always go further once they know they can.
Click to expand...
 
LewTheShoe said:
^ The lucky dog pass was a compromise solution introduced instead of racing back to the S/F line, an alternative way to regain a lap when racing to the line and the gentleman's agreement were ended. That is where it came from.
Click to expand...

I know. This is exactly what my post stated in its initial words and then argued was unnecessary and misguided.

LewTheShoe said:
Philosophically, I'd have more problem with the gentleman's agreement, as that allows one driver to grant a lap to a teammate or friend, but refuse it to another competitor. That smells.
Click to expand...

We can have a philosophical problem with how the drivers and teams chose to voluntarily conduct themselves with regard to that, and I also didn't like it. It would be quite different today with more competitive cars and multicar team dynamics. I don't care for certain unwritten rules in other competitions either. It was an informal practice though, not a rule. Replacing an unwritten custom with a codified rule is stupid. That was the point. It was sold as a compromise, but in reality was a way to mandate artificially closer competition. If you think that is hyperbole, just extrapolate the concept a bit further. How would allowing every car on the track to rejoin the lead lap during every caution strike you?

LewTheShoe said:
But it's ridiculous to climb up on a high horse and try to make the lucky dog some evil philosophical monster that signifies Nascar malfeasance.
Click to expand...

I respect the measured tone you take in these matters. But no, I'm quite certain that the passive acceptance over time of the smaller affronts leads to the goal posts being pushed further and further out and the erosion of what genuine competition means. Nearly everyone has a line at which they will no longer accept it, and for some that line was long ago and they are gone. We don't hear those voices in environments like this. I agree that we should wait for changes to be announced to criticize and react to anything specifically. When they are announced, fans who disapprove should say so loudly and clearly, not be fooled into believing they should fall in line and be positive no matter what. That's my opinion, and I figure if there is any thread to head in that direction, it's this one.
 
NASCAR didn't have to put in any 'get a lap back' mechanism when they dropped racing back to the green flag. The Lucky Dog was a safer compromise, a way to codify the existing way of getting a lap back on the cheap. Unlike the gentlemen's agreement, the Dog doesn't play favorites or vary in the number of drivers getting back.

I don't see how anyone can regard pit road speed as anything less than beneficial. If I want to see bodies crushed against wall or thrown through the air, I'll queue up 'Death Race 2000' or similar fare. Thank the Racing Gods that doesn't happen anywhere near as much.
 
gnomesayin said:
... But no, I'm quite certain that the passive acceptance over time of the smaller affronts leads to the goal posts being pushed further and further out and the erosion of what genuine competition means. ...
Click to expand...
What some see as small affronts, other see as clear improvements.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
NASCAR didn't have to put in any 'get a lap back' mechanism when they dropped racing back to the green flag. The Lucky Dog was a safer compromise, a way to codify the existing way of getting a lap back on the cheap. Unlike the gentlemen's agreement, the Dog doesn't play favorites or vary in the number of drivers getting back.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wish I could get you to see the point I'm making about the foolishness of replacing a custom with a rule. Neither were necessary. It's the idea that anyone should be given a lap back just for the sake of it that is rotten. This doesn't exist in other forms of racing.
 
gnomesayin said:
Sorry, I wish I could get you to see the point I'm making about the foolishness of replacing a custom with a rule. Neither were necessary. It's the idea that anyone should be given a lap back just for the sake of it that is rotten. This doesn't exist in other forms of racing.
Click to expand...
I definitely prefer this rule over the custom, but I could happily accept it if NASCAR dropped the Dog immediately.

Other forms of racing? We've both seen F1 drivers roll over and show their bellies to let teammates get by, not merely for a lap but for the win. Call it a gentlemen's agreement, call it team orders, but it isn't limited to NASCAR.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Other forms of racing? We've both seen F1 drivers roll over and show their bellies to let teammates get by, not merely for a lap but for the win.
Click to expand...

Bah! That's way adrift. F1 sucks in many ways and team orders stink. No other major (or minor really) motorsports sanction has the "boldness" as Brian France would say (real meaning: lack of scruples) to make a rule guaranteeing that drivers be handed laps back. I try to stay away from comparing to other sports as I don't like that, but the analogy of handing out free points to a trailing team every so often is right there if it helps.
 
gnomesayin said:
Bah! That's way adrift. F1 sucks in many ways and team orders stink. No other major (or minor really) motorsports sanction has the "boldness" as Brian France would say (real meaning: lack of scruples) to make a rule guaranteeing that drivers be handed laps back. I try to stay away from comparing to other sports as I don't like that, but the analogy of handing out free points to a trailing team every so often is right there if it helps.
Click to expand...
I'm contradicting your position that similar things don't exist in other forms of racing. I'm not saying they're right or that I like them, just that they DO exist.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm contradicting your position that similar things don't exist in other forms of racing. I'm not saying they're right or that I like them, just that they DO exist.
Click to expand...

I think similar is a stretch, as I've tried to drill down and be specific. Regardless, do unsavory practices exist in other motorsports and competitions? Of course they do, and when i discuss those, I criticize them just as harshly..
 
Nothing can be worse than replacing the points format with a universally derided chase format at the height of the sports popularity. Never before or again will an executive decision that bad be made to a major sports series in the entire universe.
 
gnomesayin said:
I think similar is a stretch, as I've tried to drill down and be specific. Regardless, do unsavory practices exist in other motorsports and competitions? Of course they do, and when i discuss those, I criticize them just as harshly..
Click to expand...
:cheers:
 
gnomesayin said:
Sorry, I wish I could get you to see the point I'm making about the foolishness of replacing a custom with a rule. Neither were necessary. It's the idea that anyone should be given a lap back just for the sake of it that is rotten. This doesn't exist in other forms of racing.
Click to expand...
I understand your point. I just don't agree with your characterization that its rotten, some huge anticompetitive monster of an issue. Its not. There are a hundred ways to lose a lap in a Nascar race. This is one way to get one back. And as such, it also introduces a strategy element that is sometimes interesting.

IMO crying and whining over the lucky dog rule diverts attention from other Nascar practices that actually reduce the legitimacy of the sport in a real way. Those who cry about everything are not heard about anything.
 
ReturnTrip said:
... Never before or again will an executive decision that bad be made to a major sports series in the entire universe.
Click to expand...
You should know better than to say stuff like that. That's like saying, "Well, it could be worse; it could be raining." or "We're cool. My parents won't be home for hours."
 
Charlie Spencer said:
NASCAR didn't have to put in any 'get a lap back' mechanism when they dropped racing back to the green flag. The Lucky Dog was a safer compromise, a way to codify the existing way of getting a lap back on the cheap. Unlike the gentlemen's agreement, the Dog doesn't play favorites or vary in the number of drivers getting back.

I don't see how anyone can regard pit road speed as anything less than beneficial. If I want to see bodies crushed against wall or thrown through the air, I'll queue up 'Death Race 2000' or similar fare. Thank the Racing Gods that doesn't happen anywhere near as much.
Click to expand...

I remember back when most drivers were older working class men and they approached pit road as fast as possible with out endangering people. As pit road became the place to make up spots the speeds increased to an unsafe level. With the kids who drive today, there would be a lot of deaths without the speed limit. I say this because in every race with a restart at the end they can't make it to the finish line without wrecking.
 
The other angle to approach this from is to say that Dale Earnhardt nor any of his peers or predecessors were ever being nice and 'gentlemanly' enough to give a lap back to anyone who they thought might beat them that day. No way. It is such a different beast now with closer competition and double file restarts and pit strategies and multi-car team politics. If racing back to the line were somehow palatable and safe (it isn't), the leader wouldn't be pulling over anymore to let a half dozen random cars back on the lead lap.

Once NASCAR decided it had to dictate who gets a lap back when, it made it possible for the leader to get beat by someone who would have had no chance if not for that NASCAR discretion.

LewTheShoe said:
IMO crying and whining over the lucky dog rule diverts attention from other Nascar practices that actually reduce the legitimacy of the sport in a real way. Those who cry about everything are not heard about anything.
Click to expand...

I get your argument too. I don't cry over everything, and there are instances when I say "This isn't important, get up in arms over something else." My thing is integrity of competition. I don't care if they change the day, time, length, whatever, as long as I can accept that I'm watching a legitimately contested race. I've come to see the incrementalism that is used to nudge things further away from that, as I see it.
 
Long time fan here that doesn't have a problem with the Lucky Dog Rule. Didn't have a problem with the way it was before that either. I've had my share of time watching my driver race to get that Lucky Dog position to gain a lap back. With the rule of putting those a lap down or more behind the leaders on the restarts, it's kind of a necessary evil to allow those drivers to have a chance to gain that lap back.

As far as the thread topic goes..... While I can sure complain about many of the changes that NASCAR's made, I can't really complain too much yet on changes that they may or may not make. I'll probably wait for the announced changes before trashing them.

I can say that the one that scares me the most, as an attending fan, is timed races. I don't think that would come out in my favor as a paying fan. At home, it wouldn't be a big deal. The ideal time of a race that keeps being floated around by those that are involved with NASCAR in one form or another is a 3 hour window from start to finish of a broadcast. I'm down to attending just the two Martinsville races a year now. I had to go back and look it up to see just how many sub 3 hour races I've attended there over the past ten years or so. In the past 20 races there have been ZERO races that have finished in that 3 hour window @ Martinsville. 500 laps @ Martinsville is an awesome race. A 3 hour limit @ Martinsville is not worth this fans $'s.
 
Team Penske said:
I remember back when most drivers were older working class men and they approached pit road as fast as possible with out endangering people. As pit road became the place to make up spots the speeds increased to an unsafe level. With the kids who drive today, there would be a lot of deaths without the speed limit. I say this because in every race with a restart at the end they can't make it to the finish line without wrecking.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that having no speed limit on pit road today would not work as just about every 35-40 mile an hour pit stop has issues of drivers missing pits, running into tires, running into others and running into competitors. Pit road can often function as a 3 ring circus and there is no way today's drivers and crews have the skills or ability to pull off what the old-timers did for years.
 
gnomesayin said:
The other angle to approach this from is to say that Dale Earnhardt nor any of his peers or predecessors were ever being nice and 'gentlemanly' enough to give a lap back to anyone who they thought might beat them that day. No way. It is such a different beast now with closer competition and double file restarts and pit strategies and multi-car team politics. If racing back to the line were somehow palatable and safe (it isn't), the leader wouldn't be pulling over anymore to let a half dozen random cars back on the lead lap.

Once NASCAR decided it had to dictate who gets a lap back when, it made it possible for the leader to get beat by someone who would have had no chance if not for that NASCAR discretion.



I get your argument too. I don't cry over everything, and there are instances when I say "This isn't important, get up in arms over something else." My thing is integrity of competition. I don't care if they change the day, time, length, whatever, as long as I can accept that I'm watching a legitimately contested race. I've come to see the incrementalism that is used to nudge things further away from that, as I see it.
Click to expand...

That is the issue with Lew and others as the integrity of what they are seeing is not important. I was lamenting drivers getting unearned laps back in races and Lew told me that it wasn't an issue because it didn't change their finishing positions. I think 6-7 cars have gone on to win races that have been the beneficiary of unearned laps not to mention the countless teams that have gone from 25th to 12th in the closing laps due to incessant cautions and restarts. The process is artificial and bereft of integrity but some people are either completely blind to it or feebly attempt to rationalize it.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I can say that the one that scares me the most, as an attending fan, is timed races. I don't think that would come out in my favor as a paying fan. At home, it wouldn't be a big deal. The ideal time of a race that keeps being floated around by those that are involved with NASCAR in one form or another is a 3 hour window from start to finish of a broadcast. I'm down to attending just the two Martinsville races a year now. I had to go back and look it up to see just how many sub 3 hour races I've attended there over the past ten years or so. In the past 20 races there have been ZERO races that have finished in that 3 hour window @ Martinsville. 500 laps @ Martinsville is an awesome race. A 3 hour limit @ Martinsville is not worth this fans $'s.
Click to expand...

I don't think every race would be a timed race and I'm sure Martinsville wouldn't be one of them. But I am open to timed races at other tracks just to change things up. Kentucky, Kansas 1, Charlotte 1, Talladega 1, etc.
I think the time has come to start mixing things up with the format for places that don't have great racing to begin with or places that have 2 dates. This not only makes those races a little more interesting, but it makes the traditional races more exciting and prestigious too. I think a lot of the prestige of winning some of these races has been lost, i.e. Brickyard 400, Martinsville 500, World 600, etc.

I guess my point is that I don't think the changes need to be made to every race format.

Also, perhaps keeping races under 3 hours is a good thing, because then they could show 2 races on the same day like they do in the NFL. A morning race on the east coast and an afternoon race on the west coast immediately following the first. Then you have 6 hours of racing opposed to today's 4.
 
LouieLouie said:
I don't think every race would be a timed race and I'm sure Martinsville wouldn't be one of them. But I am open to timed races at other tracks just to change things up. Kentucky, Kansas 1, Charlotte 1, Talladega 1, etc.
I think the time has come to start mixing things up with the format for places that don't have great racing to begin with or places that have 2 dates. This not only makes those races a little more interesting, but it makes the traditional races more exciting and prestigious too. I think a lot of the prestige of winning some of these races has been lost, i.e. Brickyard 400, Martinsville 500, World 600, etc.

I guess my point is that I don't think the changes need to be made to every race format.

Also, perhaps keeping races under 3 hours is a good thing, because then they could show 2 races on the same day like they do in the NFL. A morning race on the east coast and an afternoon race on the west coast immediately following the first. Then you have 6 hours of racing opposed to today's 4.
Click to expand...

They could put a 60 minute timer on Indy and Pocono and I would be good with it.
 
I know I'll be in the minority but......I wouldn't be against timed races with a few exceptions. Leave the Daytona 500, World 600 & Southern 500 as they are. But the remain races run a max of 3 hrs after the green flag drops. I'd enjoy a race starting at 2pm and knowing it'll be over by 5pm.
 
gnomesayin said:
Bah! That's way adrift. F1 sucks in many ways and team orders stink. No other major (or minor really) motorsports sanction has the "boldness" as Brian France would say (real meaning: lack of scruples) to make a rule guaranteeing that drivers be handed laps back. I try to stay away from comparing to other sports as I don't like that, but the analogy of handing out free points to a trailing team every so often is right there if it helps.
Click to expand...
Both Indycar and Formula 1 have wave-around rules in place ... guaranteeing that drivers are handed laps back and improving their chances of being handed out some free points.
 
Johnny G said:
I know I'll be in the minority but......I wouldn't be against timed races with a few exceptions. Leave the Daytona 500, World 600 & Southern 500 as they are. But the remain races run a max of 3 hrs after the green flag drops. I'd enjoy a race starting at 2pm and knowing it'll be over by 5pm.
Click to expand...

Would you actually have the racing period be 3 hours or would you include the pre and post race stuff in that window?
 
aunty dive said:
Both Indycar and Formula 1 have wave-around rules in place ... guaranteeing that drivers are handed laps back and improving their chances of being handed out some free points.
Click to expand...

Penalizing the prepared and successful by giving things to the unprepared and unsuccessful is in vogue in many aspects of society today. No such thing as sink or swim any longer.....pity.
 
aunty dive said:
Both Indycar and Formula 1 have wave-around rules in place ... guaranteeing that drivers are handed laps back and improving their chances of being handed out some free points.
Click to expand...

You're right about the wave around rule, my bad for implying it was unique when what I really meant was the free pass rule. The wave around can be argued as a wise safety move to get slower cars out of the leaders' way on restarts, and there is some merit to that. However, it is taken advantage of to do exactly what you stated, at least in IndyCar. There is no sporting rationale for Lucky Dog except for they want more cars on the lead lap.

These rules are made much worse in practice when compounded by unnecessary cautions that are used to erase gaps and bunch of the field again and again.
 
Simple Fan said:
3 hours is to short in my opinion. Most sports run 4 hours or longer.
Click to expand...

Most NHL games fit easily inside the 3 hour window and the games often don't start until 10 minutes after sign on. I did some reading about the NBA and apparently most games very easily fit inside the 3 hour window, NFL games last about 3 hours and 10 minutes and MLB checks in at 2 hours and 56 minutes but those stats were from 2015.

What sports did you have in mind when you were talking about most of them lasting 4 plus hours? IDK how long games like tennis, golf, soccer, CFL or others last so maybe you were referring to them?
 
Simple Fan said:
3 hours is to short in my opinion. Most sports run 4 hours or longer.
Click to expand...

Since we must do the other sports comparison, which sports are you thinking of? I don't think it should matter, as the question is what is the ideal length of a NASCAR race for the bulk of the potential audience, not how long are other sports that aren't racing. But here we go.

NFL: 3:07
College football: 3:23
NBA: 2:20
College basketball: 2:05
MLB: 2:56
NHL: 2:20
Soccer: 1:50 - 2:10
Tennis: 2:20 - 2:40

The only one I can think of that can top four hours is golf tournament coverage, and that is usually timed or edited to create a more appealing 2-3 hour window of prime coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom