What NASCAR needs......

G

Gkunk79

Guest
***DISCLAIMER*** these are simply MY opinions and are NOT meant to offend, discourage , start arguments, kill babies, start the myan Apocalypse , or find out what you would do for a Klondike bar. ***END DISCLAIMER***

Let's face it, NASCAR has shed its roots completely. Gone are the days of drunken redneck bootleggers gathering at a hastily made track that used to be a corn field finding out who's souped up hotrod was going to make it across the finish line first. Gone are the days when a good mechanic teamed with an even mediocre driver actually stood a chance at fame and glory. In today's world of big corporate sponsors with the fat wallets that come with them, hell some of the superstars that brought NASCAR to the public eye wouldn't even stand a chance!

Now don't get me wrong, I see the big heads of NASCAR trying to broaden the scope of NASCAR fans and bring diversity to the sport and I think that is a great thing, but at what point do you stop expanding and exploring long enough to remember where you came from ? You want a track that will fill the stands every race? Throw a dirt track in the season ! Go back to the old days and I guarantee the fans will come ! Yes tracks like Daytona and Talladega are great spectacles to watch, but 3 wide going into a corner of your local dirt track , all of them sideways can get just as exiting ! I think the best way for NASCAR to move forward is to take a step backwards!
 
What dirt track do you know of that is going to seat 50 to 100,000 fans though? It doesn't even have to be dirt tracks that they add. Just cut down on the dang "cookie cutter" tracks where racing is boring.

IMO, ISC is a big problem with NASCAR as well. They purchase these lame tracks out west, then NASCAR gives in and takes a date from a track on the east coast because they want more out west. Taking away from Rockingham to give to California for example. C'mon man! That was NASCAR setting up The Rock to fail. If they wanted to do that, they should have taken the spring date away from The Rock and given it to Cali instead of taking away the popular fall race. The fans didn't attend the spring race because of the unpredictable weather.

Same with Darlington. NASCAR had to go and screw with tradition, well, just because they can. For years, Labor Day weekend was known as Darlington and the Southern 500. Once again, NASCAR takes the Labor Day date away from Darlington to give to who? ISC's California Speedway. Citing poor attendance and bad weather as a reason. They pushed the Darlington race to mid November. When did the bad weather occur? During Darlington's spring race and mid November. Smh. I just don't understand their thinking sometimes, OK, most of the time.

I don't know what can be done, I don't have the answers. As a fan, I just want exciting races. It doesn't even have to be every week. That's not going to happen. But when 80% of the races are a snoozefest anymore, something has to be done. I'm hoping this new car helps. We will soon find out.
 
One thing can be said, them running a race in the trucks at el Dora shows someone is on to something. Looking forward to that.
 
I tend to agree for the most part. The Truck Race at Eldora WILL be a spectacle and could bring about CUP Racing on dirt at some future time. I am all for that!

As for the past glory of the "old days", so much has improved with the passage of time and the advancement of technology. We are far removed from the days when we would mourn the death of a driver on a monthly basis. Gone are the days when rigid steel gas tanks would rupture and spray burning liquid all over the place. Gone are the days when a driver became impaled by his steering column in a violent collision. Gone are the days of racecars being sent over the Armco Barriers and into an adjacent lake. Gone are the days of 60, 70, 80 race schedules.

The past seems all glorius - but it's really not all that glorious. It should be revered and appreciated but not re-lived.

Back in the day, Bristol Motor Speedway seated 17,000 people - not 170,000-plus like it does today!

So what if a race does not sell out every time? That speaks more to the cost of travelling to the tracks then it does to the level of interest in NASCAR, in MY opinion.

As for Daytona and Talladega...
 
Gkunk79 said:
***DISCLAIMER*** these are simply MY opinions and are NOT meant to offend, discourage , start arguments, kill babies, start the myan Apocalypse , or find out what you would do for a Klondike bar. ***END DISCLAIMER***

Let's face it, NASCAR has shed its roots completely. Gone are the days of drunken redneck bootleggers gathering at a hastily made track that used to be a corn field finding out who's souped up hotrod was going to make it across the finish line first. Gone are the days when a good mechanic teamed with an even mediocre driver actually stood a chance at fame and glory. In today's world of big corporate sponsors with the fat wallets that come with them, hell some of the superstars that brought NASCAR to the public eye wouldn't even stand a chance!

Now don't get me wrong, I see the big heads of NASCAR trying to broaden the scope of NASCAR fans and bring diversity to the sport and I think that is a great thing, but at what point do you stop expanding and exploring long enough to remember where you came from ? You want a track that will fill the stands every race? Throw a dirt track in the season ! Go back to the old days and I guarantee the fans will come ! Yes tracks like Daytona and Talladega are great spectacles to watch, but 3 wide going into a corner of your local dirt track , all of them sideways can get just as exiting ! I think the best way for NASCAR to move forward is to take a step backwards!
Click to expand...
I envy you your dreams Gkunk , but no sponsor would pay $8 to $10 million per to have a Buddy Baker or a Junior Johnson in a car today . The driver has to be young ,short , pretty,and most of all ,articulate. Nor would any short track hold the crowd that is needed to make a Nascar event profitable . Have you seen Bristol ? As far as dirt goes , these cars are skittish on pavement ,too heavy , no brakes , slick tires ,etc. ,they just aren't dirt cars . Every one of those local short track drivers dream of moving up to Nascar for a reason . It is the bigtime ,the show. I'd love to see them back at Rockingham and North Wilkesboro , but I don't want to see them back of the dirt roads of Carolina running shine. Love your thoughts man.:)
 
Let me clear up something, I'm well aware your local 1/4 mile dirt track would never be able to bring the crowds or the revenue for big brother nascar. All I was trying to say Is that in my opinion that is what nascar is missing. With all the cookie cutter tracks and the follow the leader plate races, the sport has lost its luster. Hell the first " daytona 500" was run on the beach ! ( see http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=ycn-7830324 for a really good write-up) as for the cars not being able to run in dirt, I call b.s. different tire/setup package and they could make it happen. Tell me it wouldn't be awesome to see 32 cars drifting the corners on dirt!
 
ted@economy said:
I'd love to see them back at Rockingham and North Wilkesboro , but I don't want to see them back of the dirt roads of Carolina running shine.
Click to expand...
jfrkoz5yrqch6jpg.gif
 
If a private party with big funds both NWSW, it could be fixed up. Rockingham still seems to be in good enough shape.

Iowa should have been added to the schedule long before Kansas got a 2nd date. That was asinine.
 
How many fans sit in the stands has little to do with nascars profits, It's the 60% of TV revenue track owners get that is the real money. ISC and SMC statements always barely show a profit, but those statement don't include TV or track ad (which is more TV) revenue. nascar could run at smaller tracks and triple profits if the racing is good enought to boost the TV ratings 2 points.

ISC has the right idea by trying to expand into new markets and increase the fanbase and TV numbers. They just need to pick better tracks under a mile.
 
Gkunk79 said:
Gone are the days of drunken redneck bootleggers gathering at a hastily made track that used to be a corn field finding out who's souped up hotrod was going to make it across the finish line first.
Click to expand...

Never been to Franklin County, have you?
 
FenderBumper said:
How many fans sit in the stands has little to do with nascars profits, It's the 60% of TV revenue track owners get that is the real money. ISC and SMC statements always barely show a profit, but those statement don't include TV or track ad (which is more TV) revenue. nascar could run at smaller tracks and triple profits if the racing is good enought to boost the TV ratings 2 points.
Click to expand...

I still think NASCAR's going to be disappointed, in the end, with the television contracts this time. ESPN had the option to renew the contact early and didn't. I know they're happy FOX overpaid for their half - but they still have half the season (including the Chase) and the Nationwide Series they need someone to sign on for.

And I'm not so sure, in the end, FOX will be happy when those races on FOX get moved to cable. There are still a lot of people who don't get SPEED.
 
IMO, nascar should have 50 or 60 tracks by now and rotate the schedule until they have enough fans to support 2 divisions. 2 cup races each week and a real playoff. Now THAT would be expansion.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
I still think NASCAR's going to be disappointed, in the end, with the television contracts this time. ESPN had the option to renew the contact early and didn't. I know they're happy FOX overpaid for their half - but they still have half the season (including the Chase) and the Nationwide Series they need someone to sign on for.

And I'm not so sure, in the end, FOX will be happy when those races on FOX get moved to cable. There are still a lot of people who don't get SPEED.
Click to expand...

It sure wasn't a move designed to expand the market. Lets see if nascar let Fox have an option to go the paid channel route to promote their sport channels. Then we'll know why Fox overpaid.
 
FenderBumper said:
It sure wasn't a move designed to expand the market. Lets see if nascar let Fox have an option to go the paid channel route to promote their sport channels. Then we'll know why Fox overpaid.
Click to expand...

FOX did the same thing - overpaid for MLB so NBC and CBS couldn't get their hands on it then announced their moving most of their MLB telecasts to SPEED (what will be FOX Sports 1).

I think we'll find, when the next contract starts, that most of the NASCAR races go to FOX Sports 1.
 
breatheoflife said:
NASCAR had to go and screw with tradition, well, just because they can. For years, Labor Day weekend was known as Darlington and the Southern 500.
Click to expand...
I may be the only one, but California / Atlanta can have Labor Day weekend and more power to them. That sumbich was just too freakin' hot. I can't count the heat victims I saw, and not all of them had overindulged. If The Lady is only going to get one weekend, I'll take a nice evening in May over roasting in the September afternoon sun every time; and I have.
 
Gkunk79 said:
Let me clear up something, I'm well aware your local 1/4 mile dirt track would never be able to bring the crowds or the revenue for big brother nascar. All I was trying to say Is that in my opinion that is what nascar is missing. With all the cookie cutter tracks and the follow the leader plate races, the sport has lost its luster. Hell the first " daytona 500" was run on the beach ! ( see http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=ycn-7830324 for a really good write-up) as for the cars not being able to run in dirt, I call b.s. different tire/setup package and they could make it happen. Tell me it wouldn't be awesome to see 32 cars drifting the corners on dirt!
Click to expand...

Well I 'm probably one of the few on the forum that was around in 1959 when they started running at the speedway , and it sure hasn't lost any luster to me . It will be riviting , exciting and thoroughly enjoyable .Tell me 43 cars rumbling to the green flag doesn't take your breath away. Dirt racing has it's own series and draws it's own crowds . Last I heard their TV ratings weren't any better than Nascar.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
FOX did the same thing - overpaid for MLB so NBC and CBS couldn't get their hands on it then announced their moving most of their MLB telecasts to SPEED (what will be FOX Sports 1).

I think we'll find, when the next contract starts, that most of the NASCAR races go to FOX Sports 1.
Click to expand...

I sure hope not, The Speed Channel was removed from my channel lineup last year. <_<
 
ted@economy said:
Well I 'm probably one of the few on the forum that was around in 1959 when they started running at the speedway , and it sure hasn't lost any luster to me .
Click to expand...

The racing was a whole lot different in 1959...

PeopleAreStrange said:
I sure hope not, The Speed Channel was removed from my channel lineup last year. <_<
Click to expand...

Time to switch providers - or make the move to the next teir of programming services.
I cannot do without SPEED!
That's not completely true. I could survive without SPEED but I sure wouldn't want to!
 
ted@economy said:
Different yes . Better ? Not in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I suppose it just depends on what you want out of a race. The pre-plate races were more representative of what a driver and team were capable of. Today's plate races are great exhibitions but are they really "races"? Not in my opinion.

Johali said:
It was better in my opinion because I was 17 years old and everything was better, way better. :D
Click to expand...

In 1959 I was going with my Dad to ASCOT in Gardena. I didn't see my first live NASCAR race till 1967 at Riverside.
 
robbybee said:
I suppose it just depends on what you want out of a race. The pre-plate races were more representative of what a driver and team were capable of. Today's plate races are great exhibitions but are they really "races"? Not in my opinion
Click to expand...

We have different opinions on what makes an exciting race . Nothin wrong with that .:D
 
robbybee said:
I suppose it just depends on what you want out of a race. The pre-plate races were more representative of what a driver and team were capable of. Today's plate races are great exhibitions but are they really "races"? Not in my opinion.
Click to expand...
A nascar car with a restrictor plate is like driving a ferrarri through a school zone. Just my opinion .
 
I'll say what I've said for years - racing at a track that seats 15,000 where the stands are 100% full looks better all the way around than racing at a track that seats 150,000 people that's only 10% full.
 
NASCAR needs to go back to its roots if even to a lesser degree. They thought they were expanding by pulling races out of the Southeast and into the midwest and west, but in reality that just hurts the sport. They've already pulled 2 races out of the Rock, 2 out of NW, and 1 out of Darlington. All that's doing is pissing off the core fans while all the new fans they're trying to attract simply aren't interested.Would it make sense for the NHL to start pulling teams out of the Northeast and upper Midwest? Hell no.

They tried to get efforts going to build tracks in NYC and Seattle and those efforts both died. ISC also purchased PPIR in Colorado Springs with the hope of getting a track built in Denver but that hasn't taken off either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom