[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Simply put ... MONEY (sponsors) talks !!! Prove me wrong Brian.

In capitalistic arenas I have absolutely no problem with the above. Freedom to become wealthy is one of our founding principles.

However, when profit mixes with sports and almost completely over rides the pure object of any sporting event; i.e., competition, then a line has been crossed which, speaking entirely for myself here, I totally disagree with.

[Bassdogs]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

In capitalistic arenas I have absolutely no problem with the above. Freedom to become wealthy is one of our founding principles.

However, when profit mixes with sports and almost completely over rides the pure object of any sporting event; i.e., competition, then a line has been crossed which, speaking entirely for myself here, I totally disagree with.

Sponsors have flocked to __SC__ because of the popularity of the "sport", yet they seem hell bent on destroying exactly what attracted them in the first place. We want to see racing and will tolerate rolling billboards in the process if they don't try to manipulate the platform. __SC__ seems to have lost confidence in the strength of the product or they would tell the sponsors to quit whining.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Sponsors have flocked to __SC__ because of the popularity of the "sport", yet they seem hell bent on destroying exactly what attracted them in the first place. We want to see racing and will tolerate rolling billboards in the process if they don't try to manipulate the platform. __SC__ seems to have lost confidence in the strength of the product or they would tell the sponsors to quit whining.

For years NASCAR (I refer to the era when they at least appeared "stock") fans wished that the sport would be more nationally recognized and have more of its races televised.

For probably the um-teened time here, I repeat: Be very, very careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

[azrael492]

I think this is one of the dumbest rules Nascar has. The fastest cars should be in the race no matter how many points they already have.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by azrael492

I think this is one of the dumbest rules Nascar has. The fastest cars should be in the race no matter how many points they already have.

Many echo your thoughts.... problem is those that echo your thoughts aren't in NA$CAR

[jks812]

Originally Posted by azrael492

I think this is one of the dumbest rules Nascar has. The fastest cars should be in the race no matter how many points they already have.

Even some of the drivers think that. To bad Nascar don't listen to the fans and all.

[LSC9901]

We just need to find a way to be heard. I wonder if NASCAR has ever responded to the question ... honestly ????

[oncea3fan]

HOW about a spin on the old method,

friday qualify the fastest top 20-25, saturday qualify the reminder of the field still on speed, this gives the fastest 43 with a 2nd chance for anyone who missed it in the first round.
if it were to rain on friday you have a 2nd chance on saturday(one shot only) if it rains out on saturday then line up by points on sunday.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

We just need to find a way to be heard. I wonder if NASCAR has ever responded to the question ... honestly ????

I personally heard NA__AR Director of Competition, John Darby, asked about The Chosen Rule last season. As best as I can remember his exact quote was, "NASCAR has looked at it and, as far as we're concerned, it's working just as it is supposed to and NASCAR see no reason to change anything."

The above quote may not be verbatim but I will guarantee it comes very close and is in complete context.

It is what it is and as long as the media continues to play up the artificially contrived drama of "Who's starting and who's going home," and as long as there are "race fans" out there who will have no interest in a race "Their Driver" doesn't compete in, we're stuck with it.

To use a rather offensive metaphor (my apologies to you ladies but this one is about as close to NA__AR's reasoning as I can come up with), NA__AR's stand on the matter is much like a rapist; "Shut up! It's going to happen anyway so just lay back and enjoy it."

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I personally heard NA__AR Director of Competition, John Darby, asked about The Chosen Rule last season. As best as I can remember his exact quote was, "NASCAR has looked at it and, as far as we're concerned, it's working just as it is supposed to and NASCAR see no reason to change anything."

Not being sarcastic at all but just what, how and/or why is "as it is supposed to" actually refer to ? That is my question. Is it because of sponsors ? Some betterment of NASCAR that we cannot see ??? I'm just lost as to why. When, where and why did it start ???

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Not being sarcastic at all but just what, how and/or why is "as it is supposed to" actually refer to ? That is my question. Is it because of sponsors ? Some betterment of NASCAR that we cannot see ??? I'm just lost as to why. When, where and why did it start ???

It is in the interest of NA__AR's bottom line not to have a bunch of under-funded one-car teams out there. It's kind of like the old, broke-in, comfortable jeans you have in your closet which you wear around the house because they fell so damn good, but you wouldn't wear them to a job interview because they might give the wrong impression.

The small team concept is kind of like those jeans; they got you to where you are but they just aren't "appropriate." NA__AR is always looking for bigger and bigger money and, like any job interview, it's almost always more beneficial to wear a suit (hi-profile mega-teams) to show yourself off rather than those comfy jeans.

NA__AR's perfect answer to the matter is franchising but that would also bring some negative affects to the mix, mainly of the legal type. So NA__AR uses The Chosen Rule as a kind of pseudo-franchising. It gives The Chosen Teams some monetary value to lure higher profile sponsors, which benefit NA__AR indirectly, without the legalities of a franchise.

This is abetted by the media's hyping the artificial drama mentioned above.

Or, that's my take on it, anyway. However, I've been wrong before.

[Bassdogs]

Bob - meant to ask but got sidetracked. What is it that caused you to be so impassioned against the old provisional rule? I agree with your analysis of the reason we have the new rule [protect the sponsors and keep out the "old jeans"]. Nothing wrong about a sport with expectations for its participants and teams, like singing the national anthem or the prayer before the race. When I see that I'm encouraged that they at least haven't caved to the PC rule book. I plan on keeping the heat on by commenting on forums and email responses to the media shows. It may not help, but it keeps me from yelling at the family.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Bob - meant to ask but got sidetracked. What is it that caused you to be so impassioned against the old provisional rule? .

To find anything correct about any racing provisional system is to admit that the provisional concept has justification. In my mind's eye it doesn't. I am totally and unequivacably against any rule based on past merit which allows a driver or team to start a race it did not qualify for.

Yes, I know many local tracks and some other sanctioning bodies have "promoter's choices, track options, etc., etc., which accomplish the same thing. I think those are equally wrong.

.

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

I plan on keeping the heat on by commenting on forums and email responses to the media shows. It may not help, but it keeps me from yelling at the family.

Scratch the terms "e-mail" and "media shows," and replace them with "groups" and "other fans" and what you describe is very much what a group freedom-loving patriotic guy did way back in 1775 and 1776. That didn't have much affect on the situation, did it? <VBG>

Keep it up.

[Bassdogs]

Just to be clear then, you are strictly a "start the fastest 43" advocate?

If 'yes", we're not on the same page. I'm sure that won't keep you awake at night, but I think it is justifiable to have a rule that starts the top teams each week to protect the occasional flat tire or mechanical glitch during the 1 shot at qualifying. In just a couple of weeks reading your posts, I can assume that you are a purist. In this case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Just to be clear then, you are strictly a "start the fastest 43" advocate?

If 'yes", we're not on the same page. I'm sure that won't keep you awake at night, but I think it is justifiable to have a rule that starts the top teams each week to protect the occasional flat tire or mechanical glitch during the 1 shot at qualifying. In just a couple of weeks reading your posts, I can assume that you are a purist. In this case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Para 1: Yep, I am.

Para 2: Even with the Chosen 35 Rule, one shot at qualifying for a race in NA__AR's highest series is... ludicrous is about as nice a term as I can immediately come up with. I think NA__AR absolutely owes it to both the teams AND the fans to give these guys the best, yet reasonable chance they have to make the race.

My suggestion for this is to open the track for practice one hour after dawn on qualification day. Let them practice without interruption until noon. The, after an hour for track maintenance, give everyone one chance to qualify. Then thirty minutes off for more maintenance and whatever, then let EVERYONE who wants a second chance to throw out their first times and re-qualify. If they stack up their primary car in qual #1 then this is when they bring out the backup and pray..

Two attempts to get into the show are, IMNSVHO, reasonable. After Qual #2 the fastest 43 start and everyone else, no matter how many tee-shirts they sell or how much money the sponsor pours into the deal, goes home.

The above format would give the fans a reason to attend qualifying, give some drama and actually prove something (who is the most deserving to start based on actual "real time" accomplishment, not past performance.

I think we are basically on the same page, but approach it from slightly different angles.