What is the most controversial aspect of NASCAR racing?

R

Rusty Hart

Guest
Hi
I'm an Aussie and keenly interested in finding out more about NASCAR. For starters, I'd appreciate forum members opinion about what they see as being contraversial about NASCAR racing.
 
Rusty Hart said:
Hi
I'm an Aussie and keenly interested in finding out more about NASCAR. For starters, I'd appreciate forum members opinion about what they see as being contraversial about NASCAR racing.
Click to expand...

imo, it's NASCAR's inclination to create fabricated excitement, as they sometimes seem to go a little overboard to ensure that races are "entertaining"

for example, when the cars begin to get spread out on the track, quite often NASCAR will throw what is sometimes referred to as a "phantom" debris yellow flag in order to bunch up the cars for a restart

the "Chase" method used to determine the season championship, introduced in 2004, also remains controversial in some circles
 
this guy has caused quite a ruckus since he's been in NASCAR

half the time you can't understand a word he's saying

marcos ambrose.jpg


just kidding . . . actually, i think he's gained a lot of respect on the circuit in a very short time
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozz
Definitely the Chase. Before the chase, you competed for the championship all season. Now, you compete for the top ten until the start of the chase, then compete for the championship in the last ten races.

As pjmolo said, NASCAR throwing fake cautions sometimes when cars get spread out and claiming its for debris is another problem.



Oh, and welcome to the forum. :waver:
 
Can't argue with the phantom cautions.
We pretty much expect it on those 1.5 milers when after 100 laps to go, there's still little shuffling on the leader board when it gets to about 30 to go. You can almost bank on it.
I used to love it because of the artificial excitement it would create. Now, I'm not sure. Maybe we should let the race run it's course and face the fact that all races can't be barnburners.

That said, I can see why NASCAR would throw these cautions to bunch up the field. Mainly, to create new fans who may have just strolled into Hooters and glanced up at the screen. I get that.
But they're just becoming far too predictable lately - for me.
 
**** Howdy, Rusty! Welcome.

pjmolo said:
"NASCAR will throw what is sometimes referred to as a "phantom" debris yellow flag in order to bunch up the cars for a restart...
Click to expand...

That may have been more true a few years ago than it is today.

pjmolo said:
the "Chase" method used to determine the season championship, introduced in 2004, also remains controversial in some circles
Click to expand...

Some like it, some hate it. Controversial, maybe. But I think it's worked out pretty well.

The latest controversy to hit the wires is the one where people think that NASCAR fixed the qualifying results so that Danica would be on the pole (down boy) for the Daytona 500. I think it's hogwash but lots of people see black helicopters in their sleep.

Another ongoing controversy is that cheating in NASCAR is suddenly a bad thing - when some of the greatest names in the sport were among the most cheatinist bastards on the face of the planet.

Personally, I think that the most inane aspect of NASCAR is that Brian France and his family own International Speedway Corp (ISC) which owns 13 tracks on which the CUP Series runs. Their level of control over the direction of the sport is, in my opinion, far too great.

All in all, however, NASCAR remains an awesome sport!!
 
Heh Rusty , welcome to the forum . The wildest thing about Nascar is the crazy fans . They have a conspiracy theory for every little thing that goes on . None of them are true , but you can't prove a negative . Like "Nascar beats it's wife !" They don't throw cautions without cause , they wouldn't introduce fuel injection if they couldn't control cheating , they would not give a driver like Danica any special consideration . Our five time championship team is probably the most penalized team on the track, but still they rant.
 
Last year most would say Kurt Busch, the drug testing policy, and the overall quality of the racing which this new car is supposed to fix. A lot of people outside the sport also like to point out how there's relatively few minority drivers, fans, crew, owners, etc... but that is also changing just not as fast as some would like.
 
Rusty Hart said:
Hi
I'm an Aussie and keenly interested in finding out more about NASCAR. For starters, I'd appreciate forum members opinion about what they see as being contraversial about NASCAR racing.
Click to expand...

For me, it's the fact that it's a secretive family run business more focused on making money for their track operation (ISC) than growing the sport.
 
I don't think there is much that is controversial about NASCAR. I think the fans and media tend to over react to things which creates controversy. And NASCAR loves it because they know that controversy sells tickets. One thing that you will notice is that there are fans with very little education and/or business experience who think they could run NASCAR better than NASCAR. It's quite amusing.

As far as phantom cautions? I really don't know. The guys sitting in the booth communicating with the workers near the track are the only people that can really answer that question.
 
FenderBumper said:
For me, it's the fact that it's a secretive family run business more focused on making money for their track operation (ISC) than growing the sport.
Click to expand...


But, but, isn't that why "Big" Bill France started NASCAR? To make money? An idea developed in the vein of capitalism?
What has the France Family done that has restricted the growth or the sport. Nothing other than constantly try to expand the fan base, make the sport fan friendly and try to create a better situation for team owners. In days past, NASCAR definitely had used strong arm tactics and made questionable decisions indicating favoritism (stripping Ricky Rudd of the win after the Davey Allison dust up on the last lap and turn at Watkins Glen as an example) but I think most of that is no longer in use today. There is too much money and too may people directly and indirectly involved outside the France dynasty to hold back any effort intended to grow the sport.
 
Rusty Hart said:
Hi
I'm an Aussie and keenly interested in finding out more about NASCAR. For starters, I'd appreciate forum members opinion about what they see as being contraversial about NASCAR racing.
Click to expand...

LOL. Are you looking for opinions or facts? You'll get plenty of both here but you will need to filter out the grey matter as much of what gets stated here as fact is in fact opinion.

As for controversy in Nascar...not really. What I see are mostly over dramatic fans.

Welcome aboard.
 
Welcome, I am new myself.:) Nascar was started in the south. moonshine runners by trade could drive the wheels off a car were a perfect fit for the sport.They new how to do things to help their car run better since they had already been doing this for years. Heck my grandfather was a state trooper. He had to take his brand new patrol car to a man in involved in nascar, who set it up to run better, now he could keep up with the shine runners . Ever since this time period there has always been controversy over Illegal cars.(People trying to get an edge over the competetion) And even today it is alive and well . That is why I say it is the biggest controversy in Nascar.
 
Whizzer said:
But, but, isn't that why "Big" Bill France started NASCAR? To make money? An idea developed in the vein of capitalism?
What has the France Family done that has restricted the growth or the sport. Nothing other than constantly try to expand the fan base, make the sport fan friendly and try to create a better situation for team owners. In days past, NASCAR definitely had used strong arm tactics and made questionable decisions indicating favoritism (stripping Ricky Rudd of the win after the Davey Allison dust up on the last lap and turn at Watkins Glen as an example) but I think most of that is no longer in use today. There is too much money and too may people directly and indirectly involved outside the France dynasty to hold back any effort intended to grow the sport.
Click to expand...

granted, making money and growing the sport aren't mutually exclusive

however, attempting to grow the sport at the expense of the integrity of the sport (by creating fabricated excitement) isn't the way to go . . . imo
 
pjmolo said:
granted, making money and growing the sport aren't mutually exclusive

however, attempting to grow the sport at the expense of the integrity of the sport (by creating fabricated excitement) isn't the way to go . . . imo
Click to expand...

Or failing to race in new markets because nascar\ISC refuses to give up any race dates to accomodate a new track. They also fail to invest in new tracks in new markets because 1 track with 2 dates is much more profitable than 2 tracks with 1 date each.
 
FenderBumper said:
Or failing to race in new markets because nascar\ISC refuses to give up any race dates to accomodate a new track. They also fail to invest in new tracks in new markets because 1 track with 2 dates is much more profitable than 2 tracks with 1 date each.
Click to expand...

Any specific tracks you had in mind that deserve a shot at hosting a race?
 
FenderBumper said:
Or failing to race in new markets because nascar\ISC refuses to give up any race dates to accomodate a new track. They also fail to invest in new tracks in new markets because 1 track with 2 dates is much more profitable than 2 tracks with 1 date each.
Click to expand...
IOWA! IOWA! WE WANT IOWA!
Rockingham
or any other short track.

Take away double dates from all 1.5 and 2.0 mile tracks.
 
MOEJOE said:
IOWA! IOWA! WE WANT IOWA!
Rockingham
or any other short track.

Take away double dates from all 1.5 and 2.0 mile tracks.
Click to expand...

I just dont see them moving a race day to either of those tracks. Neither track brings in a new market of fans which they can promote the sport too and in the case of Iowa, thats just to small of a market.
 
EI2IC said:
I just dont see them moving a race day to either of those tracks. Neither track brings in a new market of fans which they can promote the sport too and in the case of Iowa, thats just to small of a market.
Click to expand...
hah. tell that to the fans that sell out the nw races there
 
EI2IC said:
Any specific tracks you had in mind that deserve a shot at hosting a race?
Click to expand...

Mid Ohio for one.
The Road Course at Daytona as another.
Rockingham for sure.
Maybe Eldora. We will see how the Trucks do there. I think it's gonna be FABULOUS! *jazz hands*

And IOWA too!
 
MOEJOE said:
hah. tell that to the fans that sell out the nw races there
Click to expand...

Believe me im all for trying new places, just dont see NASCAR moving a track date there to satisy thousands of fans when they're looking to grab millions of eyeballs on TV.

Now that Eldora race.....going to very interested to see the ratings for that.
 
Sorry, to get back on topic...

I'd say the the second texas race last year between Brad and Jimmie. Every time Brad took the lead and got separation at the end somebody with connections to Hendrick motorsports seemed to "wreck" so that the yellow would come out.

I think it was Kane and Martin? that wrecked at the end of the race on different occasions to bring out the yellow flag.

How bad is that, cant even remember who I was so pissed at for causing Brad to lose that race......


Sooooo long story short, Rick Hendrick controlling 25% of the engines running on a given weekend, allowing him to "help" his teams win (I only believe this when I get mad a Hendrick car wins lol)
 
EI2IC said:
Believe me im all for trying new places, just dont see NASCAR moving a track date there to satisy thousands of fans when they're looking to grab millions of eyeballs on TV.

Now that Eldora race.....going to very interested to see the ratings for that.
Click to expand...

Have u seen a race on tv of Iowa?
 
EI2IC said:
Any specific tracks you had in mind that deserve a shot at hosting a race?
Click to expand...

No, it's not about specific tracks. The South and North east have most of the races. To me, expansion is brining the race to new regions, even if they have to build new tracks. If new fans can get to a track and home in a weekend, nascar just might have more new fans.
 
MOEJOE said:
Have u seen a race on tv of Iowa?
Click to expand...

The issue is, NASCAR knows people like you and me are going to watch no matter where the race is held. The challenge is convincing people in the major markets (NY, DC/Balt/ LA, Philly etc) to get EXCITED! about a race in Iowa....

Races like Texas and Atlanta sound bigger and better than what they really are. But if you were to ask a person that tunes in every once in while, I'd bet they be more willing to watch a race at Texas than Iowa just based on the name.

Small name places like Bristol and Martinsville work because they have been around for so long and people know they will get good racing and the tracks are part of the history of the sport much like Lambeau field (sp?) Fenway etc.
 
FenderBumper said:
No, it's not about specific tracks. The South and North east have most of the races. To me, expansion is brining the race to new regions, even if they have to build new tracks. If new fans can get to a track and home in a weekend, nascar just might have more new fans.
Click to expand...

I get this odd feeling NASCAR would think a new 1.5 track would be the perfect fit somewhere else :tomato:
 
FenderBumper said:
Or failing to race in new markets because nascar\ISC refuses to give up any race dates to accomodate a new track. They also fail to invest in new tracks in new markets because 1 track with 2 dates is much more profitable than 2 tracks with 1 date each.
Click to expand...
Huh? They may seem like 'old' tracks now, but Chicago, Kansas, California, Texas, Kentucky, and Las Vegas are all relatively new, and existing tracks sacrificed dates to them. Yes, they're all 'cookie cutters' (Rusty, that's a term of contempt for several 1.5 / 2.0 mile tracks wiht similar shapes and banking), but they're definitely new markets.

The Nationwide and Truck series (Rusty, those series are a step down from the top-level Cup series) definitely experiment with different tracks more than the Cup series does, especially road courses. Iowa, Villeneuve, Rockingham, Road America; they both ran Kentucky for years before Cup did.

I do agree it's controversial that the schedule is dominated by tracks owned by two companies, and that the schedule includes too many 1.5 mile tracks.

Hey, Rusty! Your V8 Supercars will be running on the new track in Austin, Texas in a couple of months. I'm looking forward to watching that one. We get television coverage of a few of them every year, and they put on a good show.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Huh? They may seem like 'old' tracks now, but Chicago, Kansas, California, Texas, Kentucky, and Las Vegas are all relatively new, and existing tracks sacrificed dates to them. Yes, they're all 'cookie cutters' (Rusty, that's a term of contempt for several 1.5 / 2.0 mile tracks wiht similar shapes and banking), but they're definitely new markets.

.
Click to expand...

You consider 12 to 15 years relatively new? o_O

Kentucky. Ah yes, there's a new market for ya. nascar should be swapping out and racing in 40 to 50 different markets by now. If they were really thinking big, they would have started planning back in the 80's for 2 divisions. People talk about franchises for teams, but what would really grow the sport is franchises for tracks. That's exactly how all the other sports grew to serve every major market.
 
If there is anything wrong with Nascar's expansion plans , (other than a sudden downturn in the economy ) it is that they expanded too quickly in seating capacity and into new markets .The downturn caught them with too many seats and new venues along with having gotten away from preserving racing at the historic tracks like Darlington, Rockingham and North Wilkesboro, which pissed off older fans like me.As far as chasing a profit goes , that exactly what they are supposed to do because when they stop being profitable , the racing will have to stop.
 
FenderBumper said:
You consider 12 to 15 years relatively new?
Click to expand...
I used the word 'relatively' for a reason. Compared to Martinsville, Darlington, or Daytona, they are newer.

Don't get me wrong; I agree that there are plenty of neglected markets. I'd love to see fewer weekends with all three top series running together. That would free up more slots in the N'wide and Truck schedules to run at tracks that don't have a date. In the early years of the Truck series they did a ton of barnstorming at a lot of smaller, less well-known tracks. I think doing so would help build the fan base. It's certainly easier to get started as a fan by attending those two series. The tickets are cheaper, kids are half-price or free, the races are shorter (easier to appreciate as a casual / new fan), and there are usually more wrecks (also appealing to new fans who haven't learned to appreciate side-by-side not-quite-wrecking yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom