BuffettNews.com

i agree....they could leave in a few, esp. the grand-daddy tri-oval, Charlotte. I just love that track, and its basically "homecourt" for so many of the race teams. It would be great to get a couple more short tracks in.

While I think the expansion of NASCAR is inevitable (and I certainly don't begrudge them attempting to maximize their revenue) there has been a real shift in their attitude over the past 4 or 5 years.

I mean, NASCAR has always made stupid, illogical decisions (Petty's 200th win, anyone?) but it's only in the recent past that the seem to have no regard for the traditions of the sport or the fans and other organizations that MADE it what it is.

For me, that shift occurred when they re-negotiated TV rights and dumped ESPN and CBS to the curb. Should they have taken the money FOX and TBS offered? Probably. Should ESPN be forced to run still photos as highlight packages and have to interview drivers at the airport? Never.

If not for ESPN and CBS NASCAR would *STILL* be struggling for national respect.

And when Mike Helton stood up this year and said that while the fans may be unhappy with the new point system they'd just have to deal... well...

Frankly I think the sport would be improved drastically if they simply eliminated the "actions detrimental to the sport" rule. Racing is emotional - if someone is p*** off I want to see it and hear it. At least Harvick and Kenseth made it INTERESTING for a few minutes.

To put it bluntly: NASCAR wants to be the NFL. Emphasize teamwork while promoting your stars. Tinker constantly with the product to keep it fresh. Go where the money is. Tradition has a place as long as it doesn't stand in the way of the future.

Neither one tolerates what it sees as behavior that reflects badly on the sport(business). They aren't racing bumper cars here and I worry about something like the most recent incident getting out of hand resulting in injury or worse. I don't put up with ill-tempered crap from my kids and I don't expect it from guys who are the faces of a sport I love. If they don't want to talk to the media after an incident I respect that and the media should too. Foul-mouthed rants are for the immature.

SuperTrooper wrote:Foul-mouthed rants are for the immature.

Bullsh*t! What the f**k are you talking about

rednekkPH wrote:

SuperTrooper wrote:Foul-mouthed rants are for the immature.

Bullsh*t! What the f**k are you talking about

Thanks for making my point Frank.

SuperTrooper wrote:Thanks for making my point Frank.

Always happy to help

SuperTrooper wrote:They aren't racing bumper cars here and I worry about something like the most recent incident getting out of hand resulting in injury or worse.

It's not going to get out of hand.... hasn't gotten out of hand in the past 50 years and in that respect things aren't any different today. NASCAR has always been a self-correcting sport - it requires 43 guys to respect each other for it to work, and when someone gets out of line, the other drivers have traditionally put them back in their place.

Ernie Irvan is a great example - it wasn't NASCAR fines that made him settle down and mature, it was peer pressure... a line of drivers every week going to his hauler to berate him for taking stupid risks.

Racing is an emotional sport... without emotion it's just 43 guys running in circles. If showing that emotion means a scuffle on pit road or someone being p*** off on national television, well, so be it.

I'd rather see these guys as human... if they create a bunch of identical sponsor-thanking god-fearing milk toast clones who are afraid to speak their minds or be fined, then no one is going to care WHO wins.

But then I'm coming from the perspective of someone who has been closely involved with the sport for the past 20 years, at times intimately... my perspective may be different.

Perhaps you are too close to the sport to see the big picture. While you may find the fighting and the live TV b!tching interesting, it adds nothing to the sport. This isn't professional wresting, it's supposed to be professional RACING. As far as racing being emotional, I would suspect that the more successful racers are the ones who best CONTROL their emotions.. you can't concentrate on the tunnel turn at Pocono if you are fuming about what Harvick did to you the last lap. This is what surprises me the most about this last incident. Kenseth is known for being always in control. That's why they joke about his being a robot. Harvick took exception to a bump most would consider "just a racin' deal", and escalated it beyond reason. It's too bad Dale Sr. isn't around to explain what being a Nascar driver means to him. Right now the sport lacks that one driver that draws total respect from everybody else and that may be the missing link here.

SuperTrooper wrote:It's too bad Dale Sr. isn't around to explain what being a Nascar driver means to him.

With all due respect to the deceased, if Dale Sr. wouldn't have taken it upon himself to decide the outcome of the 500 by laying back and blocking non DEI cars from challenging Jr. and Mikey, he probably would still be around.

prrthd1987 wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:Do they turn right more than a couple of times per year yet?

OK, I dont get it! People always complain that it is a bunch of left turns, but they could spend the time it takes to complain watching CART and just stop beating a dead horse. I was born and raised a NASCAR fan, and I don't know how many people talk about a bunch of left turns. By trying to make the sport look stupid, they are just making themselves look stupid. OK, I am done ranting, my two cents has been deposited. Fins up!

Whoa just a little humor buddy

SuperTrooper wrote:Perhaps you are too close to the sport to see the big picture. While you may find the fighting and the live TV b!tching interesting, it adds nothing to the sport.

It's an integral part of the sport, historically speaking. The underlying rivalries are a major reason fans come back week after week - if there are no rivalries then there's no need to care which car wins - well, unless you want to pick a favorite by color.

It was the fight between Yarborough and Donnie Allison that helped put NASCAR on the national radar... landed them on the front page of the New York Times. It made the end of that race spectacular in the same way that the feud between Pearson and Petty made the end of the 76 500 exciting.

And controversy was a major part of how Earhardt Sr earned his respect - by not shying away from settling a score or bitching about NASCAR on TV if he felt it was warranted....

Key Lime Lee wrote: if they create a bunch of identical sponsor-thanking god-fearing milk toast clones who are afraid to speak their minds or be fined, then no one is going to care WHO wins.

unfortunately its what the sponsors want.... i got to talking to bobby rahal a fews times about it. (my nextdoor neighbor was his crew chief and bobby came by pretty often) the sponsors take the position that they've invested millions in sponsorship and the driver is the "face" of the sponsorship. they don't want any bad boys acting as the spokesmen for their companies, doesn't look good.... when miller beer sponsored rahal he was doing upwards of 100 off track corporate meet-n-greets and about 30 company employee pep talks a year. he said the sponsors really put a premium on drivers that clean up well, are articulate, well spoken individuals that won't embarass the company....

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote: if they create a bunch of identical sponsor-thanking god-fearing milk toast clones who are afraid to speak their minds or be fined, then no one is going to care WHO wins.

unfortunately its what the sponsors want.... i got to talking to bobby rahal a fews times about it. (my nextdoor neighbor was his crew chief and bobby came by pretty often) the sponsors take the position that they've invested millions in sponsorship and the driver is the "face" of the sponsorship. they don't want any bad boys acting as the spokesmen for their companies, doesn't look good.... when miller beer sponsored rahal he was doing upwards of 100 off track corporate meet-n-greets and about 30 company employee pep talks a year. he said the sponsors really put a premium on drivers that clean up well, are articulate, well spoken individuals that won't embarass the company....

True, but I think a good case can be made for the opposite also. The outspoken drivers get the TV coverage, on and off the track. Physical drivers get TV time. The controversial drivers are in the forefront of fans' minds (for better or worse). All of this equates to increased exposure for the sponsor.

Only PR flacks believe that ANY exposure is GOOD exposure. If that were true Jimmy Spencer would be king. No company wants their logo plastered across the back of a flaming idiot. Remember that Tony Stewart almost lost his sponsorship in the middle of his championship season. Home Depot are the ones that required TS to get anger management sessions. They did not see his antics as a positive thing.

Bad behavior is selfish. It affects your crew, owner, and sponsor. How do you think either of these guys will feel if the points they lost kept them out of the championship hunt for the last 10 races?

I don't believe the bad boy image brings too many people to the sport, anymore than crashes do. To me it adds as much to the sport as brawling does to baseball: it happens, it makes the news, but if that's why people show up then you have a problem.

SuperTrooper wrote:Only PR flacks believe that ANY exposure is GOOD exposure.

i have some martha stewart stock i can sell ya real cheap....

Some pretty good ideas listed here:
http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/opinion ... index.html

SuperTrooper wrote:I don't believe the bad boy image brings too many people to the sport, anymore than crashes do.

Ask 1000 fans what they remember about Sunday's race and it's going to be the crashes, the controversy and the winner. It's certainly not going to be the great side by side racing on lap 40.

You can like it or you can not like it but it's the way it is.

And again - Yarborough and Allison fighting on national television only HELPED the sport.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
unfortunately its what the sponsors want....

I understand the business considerations.. but there's a line beyond which too clean is not interesting. When no one shows up at race tracks, what good is the sponsorship?

I'm also not suggesting everyone go and swing at the media the way Stewart did... but I also think that everyone (including his sponsor) way overreacted to that. I don't recall a single fan protest calling for Home Depot or NASCAR or anyone to straighten him out.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

SuperTrooper wrote:I don't believe the bad boy image brings too many people to the sport, anymore than crashes do.

Ask 1000 fans what they remember about Sunday's race and it's going to be the crashes, the controversy and the winner. It's certainly not going to be the great side by side racing on lap 40.

You can like it or you can not like it but it's the way it is.

And again - Yarborough and Allison fighting on national television only HELPED the sport.

I remember Dale Jarrett beating Dale Sr. for the Daytona 500 win and Rusty Wallace flipping BIG time down the back strech. And that's it.

KLL, Once again, hits the nail on the head. Nascar might say No-NO. But their hearts and most importantly bank accounts, says YES-YES. And I have been watching Nascar for the better part of 20+ years

It's all about the