[nascarfan24]

i agree with everything he says except for the pass/fail thing
i mean top 10 is passing now a days

[clutch]

He seems to be a man of two minds. He quite rightly ( ) feels that the fastest 43 should make the field but also thinks that some recognition should be given for the contribution that these long labored teams have given to Nascar.

I certainly see his point but arent sure of the fair way to administer 'recognition'

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by clutch

He seems to be a man of two minds. He quite rightly ( ) feels that the fastest 43 should make the field but also thinks that some recognition should be given for the contribution that these long labored teams have given to Nascar.

I certainly see his point but arent sure of the fair way to administer 'recognition'

Let them be the honorary Marshall. Recognition for the past shouldn't include advantages in the future. Be glad you performed well back then and do all you can to get back to that point today.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by PettyBlue

Who owns the teams,cars and therefor the show?Tracks are begging for a date to see the teams and cars not the Frances.Get together owners and race where you agree as a collective body.ps.RD did you read my post?I stated the drivers that did put their life on the line and there are many more.France family is nothing without the big teams.

PettyBlue, sorry I took so long to respond .. have been busy trying to get my computer to work again after an "update"....

Yes, I read your post, and the posts before and after. I believe words mean something and answered your question with what I believe is the truth.

I'm sense you are so down on the France's, they're not my favorites either. But, they own the sanctioning body. No one is stopping Petty, Rousch, Everham, Hendrick, Wood, or any of the other teams from dumping NA$CAR and going to USAC or ARCA or even starting their own sanctioning organization. I believe they know that if they did, their sponsor support would drop considerably. And while they love racing, it's a business and the business is what puts food on their table and clothes on their back, not the racing. Hopefully no one honestly believes they can pay the bills with winnings - I doesn't happen in the little leagues nor in the big leagues.

Like anyone else with an in-demand commodity, the France's (aka NA$CAR) are rightly justified in charging whatever they think the market will bear and making obscene profits from their commodity. That's the nature of "capitalism". Do you think the Rolling Stones are worth a $50 ticket? I don't, so I don't go to their events. But I will put down my $50 for a Cup race and be proud I have a ticket. Other people have an opposite opinion of the two events. You might say that's be basic premise of racing - a difference of opinion.

[PettyBlue]

R/D I agree with most of your post,except.Sponsors do it for the teams not NASCAR-aka France's.If the teams raced in Timbucktoo the sponsor would be there as long as it's on a major TV network to promote their product.Last I checked the France's did not own a TV network.If the teams would get together on this they would win the BIG RACE=money.Do you pay to see a France at the track?

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by PettyBlue

R/D I agree with most of your post,except.Sponsors do it for the teams not NASCAR-aka France's.If the teams raced in Timbucktoo the sponsor would be there as long as it's on a major TV network to promote their product.Last I checked the France's did not own a TV network.If the teams would get together on this they would win the BIG RACE=money.Do you pay to see a France at the track?

No, I don't pay to see a France at the track. But I do pay a France to see a NA$CAR race at the track. The TV and Radio networks pay NA$CAR for the "privilege" of broadcasting the race. The fan pays the track for the "privilege" of attending the race. The teams pay NA$CAR for a license to operate under the NA$CAR banner. A Cup Team pays NA$CAR a $500 entry fee for each race ( Busch teams pay $350.) NA$CAR tightly controls anything with the NA$CAR logo via licensing. ANYTHING sold with a NA$CAR logo on it generates income for NA$CAR.

The prize money is put up by the track and may include additional monies such as a % of the TV royalties as well as sponsor contingency money (like the Busch Pole Award.) NA$CAR skims a portion of the total prize money and puts into the points fund. NA$CAR also charges the track a fee to host the race (you would think it ought to be the other way around, but it's not.) The track hopes to recover the prize money from ticket sales and concessions. Penske owns, what 3 tracks? Bruton Smith owns 5. And NA$CAR owns a few thru ISC. That's more than half of the race tracks .. controlled by a race team owner, a track owner and a sanctioning body.

You can "pie in the sky" all you want, it ain't likely that even a half dozen teams will "walk out." There's just too many $$$ in NA$CAR for folks to walk away from their share. I agree, the teams ought to get a bigger share of the pot, but they just don't want to take the chance of loosing what they have by making a big stink over it.

[PettyBlue]

Agree.But say the tracks increase the prize money to bring in the teams which bring in TV/Radio money to broadcast the race for the track.The sponsors will follow the broadcast and be there for the teams.The tracks make more and the teams make more.The tracks control where races are by how much prize money is putup.Who needs NASCAR then?Run what you can build to go fast without every nut and bolt under a microscope aka NASCAR inspection.That would be great racing for the fans.Old school run what you brung.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by PettyBlue

Agree.But say the tracks increase the prize money to bring in the teams which bring in TV/Radio money to broadcast the race for the track.The sponsors will follow the broadcast and be there for the teams.The tracks make more and the teams make more.The tracks control where races are by how much prize money is putup.Who needs NASCAR then?Run what you can build to go fast without every nut and bolt under a microscope aka NASCAR inspection.That would be great racing for the fans.Old school run what you brung.

"tracks control where races are by how much prize money is putup" - as time moves forward, tracks then begin to compete for the same racers on the same dates. Eventually there is no clear schedule, and just who (team/driver) will show up at any given place at any given time can not be known/predicted. Everyone fights for their own individual survival. The competition becomes poor as teams go where the sure money is, not where the top money is. Big difference. This approach actually caused the demise of many tracks at the lower, but very entertaining, levels of racing. It just doesn't work until there is a "get together" of tracks, drivers, sponsors, etc. to put definition and order to things so everyone does not lose. An agreed upon "Get together" = schedules = rules of engagement = sanctioning body = you get the point.

Having personally been a member of a "sanctioning body" while a member of a "local track club", have witnessed the above described results of attempts by tracks to "control" scheduling. Ain't real long before you're racing to empty stands.

Then there's the "insurance thing" in todays world. No individual track can afford it. Together, with a defined criteria for the events to be held across the tracks in agreement with one another, insurance can be secured.

The days of "run what you brung" is dead at the top levels that most want to see brought to their living room every week. And ya just will not get these type of "fans" too far from their refridgerator.

[thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by PettyBlue

Just another example of why the France's are nothing but leaches, 'Sweat equity:' Has time come for franchises? ,I love the sport of the race but hate the way the France family runs it.

This is the truest statement yet of the powers that be in our sport. Yes, we need a sanctioning body to get the schedule out every year. The banquet, the general rules and officials. But there comes a place and time to step back and let the racers put on the show. Let the politics be run by the government sleezeballs that we elect. It's hard to see the big picture and be a competitor at the same time. For we develop a biased opinion on things.

[Bob Tanner]

In reading these post, it's proved interesting. I think that I hope that the Kentucky lawsuit does what the Ferkel (Texas) lawsuit stopped at doing, bringing a full-fledged anti-trust suit against ISC/NASCAR.

From what I have heard, ISC/NASCAR did not specifically promise Kentucky a date, as it did Texas/SMI. However, from what I have heard it "inferred" that a date might be possible. Apparently Kentucky asked ISC/NASCAR what it would have to do, track-building-wise in order to acquire a date and ISC/NASCAR gave them a blueprint, which they have apparently followed and have even gone beyond the requirements?

The fan in me thinks something really stinks about the way ISC/NASCAR grants its race dates.

However, and God knows I'm not a fan of the ISC/NASCAR organization, when it comes to the business side of the sport, its best to take your fan hat off. NASCAR/ISC has turned stock car racing into a major business. Unfortunately the fairness and equality we want to see in sports doesn't always apply to the world of big business. Not only does NASCAR/ISC have to keep the Family France supplied with cars which Brian Z can run into trees, it also has to show a profit and keep its stockholders happy and many of these stockholders wouldn't know aero push from a push-up bra.

All this proves is that if you want to ruin a good sport, throw money at it. Things will go to Hell in a hurry.

P.S. It would do my heart good to see this anti-trust thing stick. There are some things about ISC/NASCAR I'd like to see made public. My bet is, though, that before any of this happens, an ISC track will give up a date to Kentucky.

[PettyBlue]

Bob,I agree and hope Kentucky wins out over Francecar.

[thunderfoot]

Have you ever looked at how the NFL comes up with the rules that they adopt? All the owners get together each year and hash out the required changes to the rule book. I dont think it would ever happen but it does sound OK

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by thunderfoot

Have you ever looked at how the NFL comes up with the rules that they adopt? All the owners get together each year and hash out the required changes to the rule book. I dont think it would ever happen but it does sound OK

I've of two minds on that one, shipmate.

One one hand it seems to work reasonably well in the NFL, but I quit following stick&ball over twenty years ago so I will admit ignorance to the finer points of the sports administration. The biggest thing I admire about the NFL rule making is that when they set a rule in place, they don't tinker with it, nor change it, in the middle of the season. NASCAR should really look into that concept. It is less costly to the teams, is less confusing to the fans, and gives the sport much more credibility.

From an outsider's (one who admittedly claims almost total apathy toward the NFL) point of view, the biggest problem in the NFL today is the morality of the players who come into the league each season. 'Nuff on that...

On the other hand, the owners having a major hand in making the rules is kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. That was what happened in open wheel racing here. Penske, Ganassi, and the other car owners began to actually run the league and turned CART into an over-technolized (hmmm...? wonder if that is actually a word?), road racing collection of a bunch of F1-wnatabes.

Tony George revolted and started the IRL, which was "supposed" to bring open wheel racing back to what it once was, but he caved in and now IRL is almost back to what it was in the old CART days. Enough on this line, also...

I think I prefer a strong, iron-fisted central governing body which holds the needs of the teams and the sponsors, the best interest of the drivers, and the desires of the ticket-buying fans, in a healthy balance... Kind of like what Kenesaw Mountain Landis did with baseball, back in the '20's and '30's. (Not a good analogy, I know. But it was the best I could immediately come up with)

I don't like the concept of franchising because I can see a multitude of unintended consequences happening, should that take place. Old line fans think the new race car changed the face of NASCAR? That would pale by comparison if NASCAR adopted franchising.

[thunderfoot]

It just goes to show you. Aint no simple solution to nothing these days except deciding what to order at McDonalds.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by thunderfoot

It just goes to show you. Aint no simple solution to nothing these days except deciding what to order at McDonalds.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. You hit a nerve, Thunder.

It always amazes me that people will stand in line at McD, BK, Hardees (Carls Jr), etc., etc., only to suddenly notice the menu board when they finally get to the front of the line, thus making all behind them wait an additional 3-4 minutes while they debate on what exactly they want to eat. (As if everything at a fast food joint didn't taste exactly the same?)