The 'great race' debate

By DAVID GREEN

It's less than a month until the Daytona 500, so it's not too soon to resume the largely dormant debate over the quality of NASCAR's product, as Jim Utter does in TR.com's lead story at this moment.

It is, as Jim points out, the driving force behind most of the changes NASCAR has made recently and is proposing to make. It is, as Jeff Burton notes, an elusive thing, this concept of just what it is that makes a race "great."

With all due respect to every opinion, I suggest that the debate -- popular as it may be -- is flawed, in several ways.

First, there is the absolutely relevant question of "what kind of race?" A 100-meter dash is different from a marathon. The hurdles are different from a relay. Cross-country is a whole different animal, as is -- literally -- horse racing.

The same things do not a "great race" make.

NASCAR-centrist participants in this debate may argue, "Well, we're talking about NASCAR races and all NASCAR races are the same."

I beg to differ. In my opinion, they are not -- short tracks and intermediate tracks and superspeedways and road courses each have their own qualities and nuances.

But even if all the essential elements are identical, as they are in football and basketball games (not so much in baseball, with variations in parks requiring different ground rules by which play is governed), all the contests are not going to be identical.

At least, I hope they're not.

And if we are striving to make them that, we are doomed to failure -- I hope.

I can think of nothing worse than a series in which every race features some formulaic kind of "excitement."

Roush Fenway Racing's Geoff Smith makes a key point with his comment that "the attention span of America is shortening." Good luck to anybody trying to keep up with that.

Auto racing is not alone in its dilemma. For decades, stick-and-ball sports have gone back and forth with tweaks in how their games are played. From the evolution of the forward pass to the elimination of the center jump after every made basket to the designated hitter, all sports have changed. All of the changes, it is safe to assume, have been for either or both of two central reasons -- the well-being of competitors and the entertainment value of the contest.

It's fine to get fan input, and it's fine to consider the opinions of competitors. It's great to tweak, even when some of the changes (the designated hitter, for example, in my opinion) are not good ones.

But the intent should be to set conditions, not micromanage outcomes.

The old tabloid newspaper rule of thumb -- that every front page headline should be a little more shocking than the one the day before -- is flawed in a fundamental way that should be obvious. Everything that goes up must come down.

Every race is not going to be a "great" one, no matter what you do, unless you write a script and have competitors follow it to the letter. That's not sport; that's theater.

Forget about holding the interest of any "fan" who requires that kind of maximum stimulation, every time he or she buys a ticket of turns on the television.