Turn 3

Oversaturation equals declining interest

By DAVID GREEN

An off weekend for the Cup Series might be a slow time for fans and for the media covering motor sports, but you sure couldn't tell it judging by the activity on TR.com yesterday and today. There's plenty of news and a good bit of interactivity from visitors to the Web site.

Picking one subject to develop into a post is tough, so I won't try that. Instead, let's talk about off weekends -- or, more specifically, the dearth of them.

I'm on record as one who believes there are too many races.

Sure, there were once as many as 48 races a year on the old Grand National tour. But most of them were short races on short tracks and the cost of running those 48 races was microscopic compared to the cost of competing in one event nowadays. Most of them were in a pretty concentrated geographic area, so travel was less of a problem with regard to economic and physical/emotional costs. And very, very few of the races were televised, so the product really needed to be distributed to the masses in person.

Now, I think the excess number of races is a contributor to the declining interest in the sport, if measurements of TV ratings and attendance mean what I think they mean.

I also think most of the races on the schedule are too long, which contributes to the oversaturation of fans and competitors alike.

I know some fans have an insatiable appetite and "too many races" or "races that are too long" are concepts that don't compute for them. That's their prerogative, and I don't mean to change anybody's mind -- I'm merely offering my thoughts.

However, I believe that the ones with insatiable appetites are more likely to pay attention to fewer and shorter races than those who have been overly stimulated are going to watch more races for longer periods of time.

If my logic and my arithmetic are correct, fewer and shorter races would yield a net gain in fan interest.

Too many drivers spoil the Chase

By DAVID GREEN

All anybody can talk about nowadays (except the Kyle Bush versus Brian Vickers spat) is the Chase, and who's going to make it and who's not.

It's a compelling subject, because it is the way NASCAR has decided to determine the Cup Series champion, like it or not. The format probably isn't going to go away, not anytime soon, maybe not ever. So complaining about what is and pondering what might have been or what ought to be is pretty much useless.

But it can be fun, anyway.

For what it's worth, I think the biggest flaw in the Chase concept is that it gives too many drivers a chance to win the championship. That, to me, cheapens it.

In an average season, the title was locked up before the final race or by some easy-enough job such as finishing at least 24th or so. In an good season, there was a legitimate duel between two guys that went down to the wire.

In 1992, six drivers had a mathematical shot at the title in the final race. That's off the charts extraordinary.

Twelve drivers, each with a real chance to win the season championship? Even before the field was expanded, 10 potential champions? No way you can make a case in support of the notion that all 10 or all 12 could possibly be deserving of a championship title.

To determine the most deserving champion, the system ought to narrow the Chase field down to the drivers who have done the things, all year long, that fans remember when each race is over -- the positive things, that is, such as winning, or leading laps, or finishing in the top five, maybe the top 10.

Don't count the negatives, such as SportsCenter highlight crashes or temper tantrums, and don't count the things that traditional points systems have elevated to some level of importance, such as finishing 23rd instead of 25th.

Never, ever, are you going to have as many as 10 drivers in the field. You're not going to have 10 guys win two races apiece during the Race to the Chase.

And that's why we'll never see such a system. NASCAR is all about big numbers.

A Chase for the Cup, with only two or three or at the most six guys in it? Not going to happen.

Television and the masses seem to want a contrived championship system that entertains them, never mind whether it truly recognizes the most deserving driver. NASCAR is giving them what it thinks they want.

Shrub in F1, and other fantasies

By DAVID GREEN

Peter Windsor, familiar to many of us as a Formula One journalist and now thanks to his involvement with US F1, the new American entry in the international grad prix series, is drawing criticism for a recent article suggesting that F1 has neglected American drivers.

The article, published on numerous Web sites and attributed to a Sports Illustrated item, quotes Windsor as affirming that the new team he co-owns with Ken Anderson continues to look for American talent to drive the two cars that will be fielded by the new team.

I guess it's bad enough for hoity-toity F1 fans to have to endure that one of their teams is going to be based in North Carolina, but to suggest F1 has erred in not seeking driver talent from west of the Atlantic and north of Colombia is just too much for them to stomach.

The critics have some good ammunition. They point out the failure of Scott Speed and Michael Andretti, the two most recent drivers to represent the Stars and Stripes. They point out the failures in F1 of many top drivers from American-based open-wheel, single-seater racing.

They have a right to their opinions, no matter how obnoxiously they may offer them.

Not that my opinion matters to them, but none of them will ever convince me that Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart, just to name two, could not have been successful -- championship-quality successful -- in F1 or any other form of racing they might have chosen to undertake.

Windsor singled out Kyle Busch as a driver with the potential to make the grade. I agree with the assessment, and I'd love to see it happen.

Not that I want to see Busch leave NASCAR, although some of the more outspoken critics of the controversial driver might jump on my bandwagon for that reason. I'd like to see Busch go to F1 with the same attitude he brought to NASCAR and kick some Euro butt.

Whether that will ever happen depends on a whole lot more than Busch's driving talent.

But while I'm dreaming...

• I'd like to see a representation of current NASCAR stars (Stewart and Gordon, plus others) in the Indianapolis 500,
• I'd like to see the distance of most NASCAR Cup Series events reduced to an approximate 2-1/2-hour timeframe. I don't want a time limit, merely an approximate distance relative to the size and type of track.
• I'd like to see factory-stock body shapes return to NASCAR racing -- and to dirt late model racing, as well.

• I'd like to see those factory-stock bodies with at least six inches of ground clearance and maximum rear spoiler heights of 2 inches, with no splitters and no bulldozer-blade airdams. (OK, the dirt cars can have rear spoilers as tall as 6 inches.)

With that, I sign off and resume my vigil, waiting for pigs to fly.