Subscribe to this blog's feed« Bodine smartly opts for discretion | Main | No JR Motorsports ride for me, either »
November 07, 2009
Bad times, bad racing, or flawed perceptions?
By DAVID GREEN
One of the hardest questions to answer these days would have to be: What is the state of the sport of auto racing?
Fan dissatisfaction is a recurrent theme. The quality of competition is constantly under scrutiny. The sagging economy is a pervasive issue.
And, as I have suggested in this space before, there's not a whole lot of confidence in the leaders of major-league auto racing. Brian France is the butt of every NASCAR joke. Tony George never got as much respect as fellow Hoosier Dan Quayle. In Formula One, the antagonistic Max Mosley is gone, but the selection of Jean Todt as his successor represents anything but a regime change.
So, how much of it is real, valid gloom and doom and how much, as NASCAR's Tony Stewart recently suggested, is perception?
Far be it from this observer to claim knowledge of the truth that we all seek. But it does seem to be an unusually turbulent and unstable time. And that probably affects perceptions as much as, if not more than, it impacts empirically quantifiable reality.
In NASCAR's case, I have to say that much of the sport's image problem is the result of its own doing, with some media complicity. My assessment is that on-track competition is clearly better with regard to numbers -- of different race winners, of drivers with legitimate chances to win races, of full-time participating teams, of prize money and championship value -- than it was three or four decades ago.
But it's not quite as breathtaking -- for mass audiences, anyway -- as NASCAR has hyped itself.
For the most part, the media played along with that -- not merely with the things that reporters wrote, but with the frenzy over television rights and speculation about overtaking the NFL in popularity and the gluttonous obsession with stealing everybody else's toys (Juan Pablo Montoya, Sam Hornish Jr., Dario Franchitti, and recently the mindless obsession with Danica Patrick).
NASCAR further does itself a disservice with its micromanagement of rules and public castigation of competitors for the most miniscule offenses. In this, the media are also complicit, in reporting these "crimes" as if they were of any consequence. Conversely, Formula One appears to have real problems of serious import -- technical espionage and race-fixing. It all has a chilling effect on the confidence of fans.
Ironically, F1 -- historically dismissed by hard-core NASCAR fans as boring -- is now being condemned by its own ranks. Fans, pundits and competitors alike bemoan the pristine new circuits which lack the soul of older, traditional tracks, and criticize the sanitized high-tech but low-excitement racing.
Bad times, bad racing, or just flawed perceptions?
It's up to each individual to decide. But for sure, there's no consensus that this is any sort of golden age of motor sport.
November 7, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Good Morning David!
It seems to me that the harder Nascar tries to "control", the result is actually losing it.
The "claw", is a technical tool designed to create the "box". It could be described a the giant hand, to guide everything in it's grasp.
When they saw money being made in die-cast and T-shirts, their percentage was not enough. Bruton and Brian merged to buy it all. That same effort was applied to concessions at the track.
More control efforts were exploited after 2001. The "cooler crackdown". Efforts which had been tried and failed in the past by fan outcry, were trumped by fear. The fear of missing out on a thirsty buck.
It took Jack 15 years to make a 5 car team reap rewards. Even then an owner could only "own" two teams, hence mama owner, papa owner, driver owner. Next year the 4 car team rule will go into effect. Hendrick will have at least 6, and Jack may be overseeing 8!
Favoritism for the phantom cautions has evolved into more control over the finishing of a race.
The economy has been the wildcard, that no one could control. It would be very interesting to have seen if Chase races at NH, Martinsville would have sold out in a better financial evironment.
Or, are fans really that mad? The Powers wanted to be like the NFL, where most seats are accounted for by the corporate world.
You (Nascar) "fired" the fans that brought you to the dance. Fans that were loyal to the sponsors of their favorite cars. So, the fans seem mad, and corporate America are re-evaluating how they spend their advertising dollars.
Now, how much more control would you like?
Posted by: Larry | Nov 8, 2009 11:12:21 AM
even the preview and edit button could not save me. pologies.
Everyone enjoy our raceday.
Be safe.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 8, 2009 11:15:52 AM
Larry. Very thoughtful post; thanks. I believe that NASCAR's abandonment of traditional tracks and traditional fans (noted by you) are the main reasons for declining interest, as measured by TV ratings. Cookie-cutter tracks are also a problem. For me, a once devout fan who wouldn't miss a single lap of any race, I now tune in for the start (of the race, not the pre-race hype), flip between the channels during the boring 1/2 of every race (spending most time on other sports events and/or a movie than the race), and catch the last 25-50 laps (if the movie isn't too good).
Posted by: JCarroll | Nov 8, 2009 1:29:19 PM
Larry: Some excellent points. No apologies necessary.
JCarroll: I suspect your TV routine is pretty typical.
Posted by: David Green | Nov 8, 2009 8:19:20 PM
Well said Larry, I feel that Mr Stewart is now a company guy towing the company line.
I attended a KISS concert in Greenville SC the night of the "Na$car Bank 500" and it was quite refreshing NOT to see any vacant seats so the economy only plays a small part. After the 'Dega parade it is apparent to me that todays drivers feel that it is "Strategy" to motor around for 450 miles because it doesn't make sense to race to the lead in a 500 mile event, THIS IS WHY the Truck series is so damn exciting because of the relativly short event you can't layback. TV coverage is horrendous, we didn't fall off the turnip wagon yesterday we do know racing...We need 1 Network to Pony up and carry all 3 series...Na$car MUST be spendy cuz CBS and NBC have carried more Golf, Tennis and Water Polo matches this summer! The Megateams where the beginning of the end that suck up Manufacturer' and sponsorship dollars...think about all the teams that have vanished since 2001, It's a richman's sport that uses "Other Peoples Money" and it isn't just Nascar! Todays drivers are like Vanilla wafers too afraid to call a spade a spade, and Nascar micromangement "don't race the chasers"...I WOULD be up there rattling someone's cage and getting in their head...I always hated running long races and having a fellow driver ask "What are you gonna do?"...My answer was always plain and simple...I'm going to the front, Lead Follow or get the hell out of my way!
Posted by: Fan #5 | Nov 8, 2009 9:25:33 PM
Kudo's #5,
Scoffed at the idea of "Danicar" on the Versus channel, but maybe you are on to something. It could be that Versus is just what we need to carry the Cup, Busch and Truck series. Maybe some cartoon, bgity, TinFoil' free coverage is what would work. They did an excellent job of covering Tourda'Lance.
In the old days I remember the answer to your dream, think it was the Speed Channel.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 8, 2009 9:44:34 PM
everythin' spelled as ntended.
0 \
: '
0 /
Posted by: Larry | Nov 8, 2009 9:48:55 PM
I love this sport and have for many years. I do not want to go back to the "good old days" when the TV coverage was five minute segments on Wide World of Sports, when the racing was not nearly as good or competitive as it is today. Don't want to see only the winning car on the lead lap. The drivers are to vanilla today and don't speak their minds, but when Kyle Bush speaks he is told to shut the hell up.
The trouble today is that there is TOO much exposure. Too many guys on TV that have to say stupid things in order to justify their jobs. Jimmy Spencer is a perfect example. I don't think even he knows what he says half the time but will say anything just to be controversial. And then ten minutes later he will contradict himself. And then people believe what they hear because it was said on TV by somebody who is "in the know."
If you don't like this sport, there is the NFL network, the Golf Channel, the NBA network, the MLB network, hell you can even go watch the Weather Channel. I'll still take NASCAR over any of them in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Peter | Nov 9, 2009 12:37:42 PM
Who in the heck does Brian France think he is,,,,Barak Obama? Telling TV to tone down it's critisizm,,,What gall.
Posted by: Lynn Dozier | Nov 9, 2009 3:07:22 PM
This is long, but ...I've been trying to make sense of this thread and have given up. So far I have read a laundry list of complaints, but can't find the glue that binds them together. It is similar to many political rallies where folks from 20 different causes get together and make lots of noise, but there's no uniting theme.
I do NOT have a problem with the quality of competition. On any given weekend, maybe 20 drivers have a legitimate shot going in, and that's a far cry from the 70s, when it seemed like Petty, Pearson, Yarborough, Allison, and Waltrip won just about every race.
I did NOT have a big problem with what happened at Talladega. NASCAR runs long races, and you have to be there at the end. Why go all-out for 500 miles? That's the race, folks - it isn't a sprint race. (Possible solution: award points for laps led on some basis other than 5 for one, 5 for most; award, maybe, for leading the most, second-most, and third-most laps.)
I do NOT have a problem with "phantom cautions." I assume they are truly for debris on the track, even if we don't see it, and safety counts. (I don't like the fact that they have to have pit stops. Can't they slow the cars down, grab the widget, and start them up again?)
I do NOT have a problem with "stealing" from other series. If a driver wants to try NASCAR, have at it. I take it as a compliment to NASCAR that folks like Montoya and Franchitti and Villeneuve (a former F1 CHAMP, for Pete's sake!) want to try it.
I do NOT have a problem with most TV coverage. I think the ABC crew is doing a terrific job, although I'm not sure why we have the second desk of Wallace, Daugherty, and DW's old crew chief - I forget his name. As for overexposure, though, I can turn the TV on about 20 minutes after air time, see the start, and then watch as I please or record it for later. No one forces me to watch the 236 hours of other programming each week. (I do miss the Despain-Waltrip-Schrader hour, though.)
And I do NOT have a problem with vanilla drivers. They have sponsors to please, and just because they're not Curtis Turner doesn't mean they're not interesting people. See Tom Jensen's piece on speedtv.com where he says Jimmie Johnson is one of the best interviews in NASCAR. Se also the brouhaha when Kyle Busch opens his mouth and says something stupid. He sure isn't vanilla, but gets a lot of crap over his comments or lack thereof.
I DO have a problem with cookie-cutter tracks, including my "home track" in Fontana. I DO have a problem with the schedule. I think there are just too many races. I'd be happier with perhaps 25 races so that each one became a little bit more important.
Finally, I DO have a problem with what Larry called the "control issue." Somehow I don't think that making me buy ISC's beer has made the world all that much safer from the days when I could bring my own.
And I haven't even mentioned the chase and the lucky dog.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Nov 10, 2009 1:38:18 PM
Objection..
Doug, just because we don't take turns calling each other stupid, you don't see the "glue"? We don't always need glue, sometimes we just snap together. It must be like a steak thru a lawyers heart, hey?
Does 2 make a cookie-cutter? In true lawyer fashion you said you're ok with the tv coverage, but don't make it thru the sentence questioning how many.
How about Lynns' point? Did the "littleB" tell us to "shut up and watch"?
Passion could be the glue, as everyone cared enough to post. David gave us a pretty big track, and we just hadn't had a "caution" yet.
Chase? Lucky Dog? Now, there is fightin' words!
Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2009 12:15:50 AM
Larry, Lynn's post came up while or before I was composing my screed. I agree with her 100%. And I didn't mention the chase and pooch because no one here's going to fight about them because they are the two things on which I think we are unanimous!
I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your paragraph about cookie-cutters. Sorry, no negative intended, I just didn't get your point.
But I like your point about the passion being the glue. Wish I'd thought of that!
Posted by: Doug in CA | Nov 11, 2009 1:10:06 AM
Doug, comments were directed in the general direction of your having a problem with cookie cutter tracks, including your own. I thought "your" track was Cali. I didn't vision Cali as a cookie cutter track. The only similar one being Michigan. No harm intended, sometimes I speak in code a bit. Sometimes on purpose.
My first Cup race was at Michigan and it was great! All the good ole'boys provided quite a show. 1976.
Also, I think Mich and Cali represent the largest and highest banking that can be raced on. When the Indy car tires went into the stands at Mich, I thought it was the begining of the end of racing as we knew it then. But, it elevated the emphasis on safety, without going to the dreaded plate. I may be in the minority, but I prefer the new Bristol to the old. Give me racing, and let me decide if it is a good "show". But, don't give me a plate "show" and try to call it racing.
Take good care, Doug.
Remember or Thank a Veteran today.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 11, 2009 8:48:30 AM
Larry, you bring up a good point: exactly what IS a "cookie-cutter track?"
Posted by: Doug in CA | Nov 12, 2009 12:51:42 AM
I've been a NASCAR fan for over 40 years, and I'm not in the industry. Is NASCAR racing perfect - No, but I don't think it ever was, but I still enjoy it. I've been a fan long enough that I've noticed how the media's tone has changed over the past 10 or 15 years. Now Chad Knaus is an evil cheater, but Junior Johnson was just creative. In the past 10 or 15 years I've seen a mean-spiritedness and sloppiness grow in the sports media (not just in NASCAR)that is depressing. It is a lot easier to complain and criticize someone than to do some real analysis - maybe too much free food in the media center. But what do I know, I'm just a NASCAR fan - and the notorious Lenox Rawlings of the Winston Journal has written and said on the radio that NASCAR fans are "ignorant and gullible," which I've come to suspect is the prevailing attitude in the media center.
Posted by: Richard in N.C. | Nov 12, 2009 7:11:04 PM
The flawed perception argument works both ways as shown by Fan #5's referal to the "Talladega parade" even though there were 58 lead changes among 25 drivers, season highs in both competitive categories. What he and others have done is let three seperate periods of single-file racing define the race when in fact the three-abreast fighting for the lead that raged all day is what defines it (subnote: NASCAR griped about ABC's coverage of that race - there were a couple of periods where the battle for the lead was raging yet ABC focused only on Jimmie Johnson out back).
Larry, the NH chase race sold out.
Doug in CA shows a strong analytical take in his lengthy post. Where there are reasons for dissatisfaction with the sport are in the following -
The lack of competitive depth in the sport - lack of new and comeback winning drivers and teams; monopolization by three teams (Hendrick, Roush, and Gibbs).
The lack of competitive racing - and here both sides (drivers and sanctioning body) are to blame between bad rules packages, a bad points system, and the lack of hunger to win in the drivers.
Acute overexposure of the sport, with unrelenting promotion of the brand as opposed to the product.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Nov 14, 2009 1:14:04 PM
Mike,
If NH was sold out, at least 25% stayed home.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 15, 2009 9:33:32 AM
Mike, you and I have been back and forth on plate racing for some years now, and I think it is time to say we agree to disagree. I found Talladega to be a compelling race. Even when they took a "break" and ran single file, the sight of those guys going 190 or so, inches from the fence, always alert for the possibility of someone breaking the train, was great entertainment. The three-lane racing is great entertainment, watching the ever-changing snakes work their way through the banks. BUT we also get The Big One, and I don't want to think that racing is about the wrecking, and I sure don't want to look forward to cars upside down or in the fence.
As for lack of competition, I think I disagree. There have been 13 or 14 different winners this year, and that's pretty good. But you're right that few teams have won, especially if you exclude rain results (Reutimann) and plate races (McMurray). We have now Martin and Johnson running for the title (such as it is) and your glass can be half-full ("Great duel for the title") or half-empty ("Hendrick is Hendrick is Hendrick.") I opt for the former but, as they say on that internet thing, YMMV.
And since the "modern era" began in 1972 or so, have there ever been more competitive cars each week? Has the rise of the megat-team hurt or helped the sport? Tell you what - pick a bar near Charlotte and give us 6 months advance notice; I'll buy the first round while we discuss it.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Nov 15, 2009 12:30:48 PM
Post a comment
Advertisements
