What NASCAR Needs In 2002
At the NASCAR Banquet in New York Dale
Jarrett made the comment that Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. were vital to
the sport’s growth. Though he included a caveat "not to take anything away
from everyone else," there was a curious sense of urgency in his comment
about how the sport needs both to stay healthy and lead the sport into 2002 and
beyond.
The only problem is that the sport needs a
lot more than just continued health and competitiveness from Junior and Gordon –
if anything, Junior and Gordon are only peripheral necessities for the sport
entering 2002. There is a lot more to it than that..
Among the sport’s necessities for 2002:
– A REAL POINT RACE – It will be
ten years since the running of the last true point race NASCAR has ever seen. Of
course it didn’t start like that and it didn’t become one until August, and it
was in the final six races that everything happened as Alan Kulwicki sweated out
the season and became Winston Cup champion.
Since then the point race has steadily
deteriorated – 1993 saw a spirited rally in the final third, but it was too
little too late. In 1994 the point lead changed hands six times, but after
mid-August and Ernie Irvan’s injury it wasn’t even relevant to anything. And
since then there has not been a truly interesting point race – there were
moments in 1995; 1996 did see the outcome change in the final month; and 2001
briefly saw a genuine point race. But other than these moments the point race
has seen the clinching of the title before the final race, and in the five
seasons since Terry Labonte’s title there has been no realistic shot of the
point race’s outcome changing.
The sport needs a real point race – a race
where the point lead changes hands at least seven times during the season and
where it changes hands within the final few races, and where the top four or
more are within earshot of the title. It needs to be compelling enough that
drivers are forced to RACE for it instead of just pound out laps.
Also needed for the sport in 2002:
– DRIVERS TO FINALLY PUT EVERYTHING
BEHIND THEM AND RACE – In the final third of 2001 drivers suddenly started
becoming more aggressive and began to gouge a lot more. The 20-race stretch
helped fray nerves and helped lead to this result, and it is good for the sport,
for it compels the drivers to RACE. Such emotion needs to be used every single
week.
– THE NASCAR MEDIA TO BECOME MORE
IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERGENT AND LESS FOLLOW-THE-LEADER – Catchfence took
me to task for my criticism of the Humpy Bumper. They were apparently unaware of
Speedway Scene coverage of the bumper detailing the uselessness of data cited in
its favor, uselessness pivotal in the final rejection of the device; they was
also little coverage of how the device’s designer had no history of developing
safety devices anywhere, let alone NASCAR. It was hardly surprising, as Speedway
Scene was the only media outlet I could find that carried any unfavorable
information about the device or even paid any serious attention to its
development.
Such typifies the general lack of
divergence in NASCAR media’s viewpoints. Without such, coverage tends to be
repetitious and rarely hard-hitting. In 2001 of course there was endless media
lobbying for NASCAR to change for the improvement of safety, and information
contrary to the running viewpoint – such as Paul Wenske’s May 10, 2001 analysis
citing peer-review criticism of Dr. Barry Myers – was smothered in the mass of
coverage.
This needs to change. There needs to be
stronger divergence in media viewpoints. Instead of follow-the-leader, the media
needs outlets that will not follow the leader and which will offer information
dissenting from whatever the dominant viewpoint seems to be. We see considerably
greater ideological diversity in stick & ball sports coverage and such
greater divergence of viewpoints should come to NASCAR.
– NASCAR TO FINALLY TACKLE CORE
PROBLEMS – The sport’s three dominant issues are safety, competition, and
costs. None have been dealt with anywhere beyond their peripheries, and the
pit-road fiascos at Homestead and New Hampshire display the full absurdity of
addressing issues on their peripheries instead of their core. Much has been made
about renewed soft wall testing – an area being checked is the
"sandwiching" of composites to prevent "trapping" of cars in
impacts, i.e. soft walls are becoming "harder" – and also of GM
testing of energy absorption within the cars, an angle somewhat similar to the
Humpy Bumper but with the emphasis being on legitimate information instead of
PR.
While such research is useful, it still
represents the sport dealing with peripheral issues instead of core problems.
The cars are simply too fast, and thus are overpowering their ability to protect
drivers; being too fast among other things has also ruined their ability to
race.
It is rumored that NASCAR will switch to
390 CFM carburetors for Winston Cup in 2002, a change in keeping with the
conversion to 390s in the Trucks during the 2001 season; 390s are also something
with which incoming Winston Cup director John Darby is most familiar from his
Grand National days. It is a start, though certainly nothing more than a start.
Of course there is more, for
controllability of the cars is also an issue – aside from being too fast they
are far too dependant on a chassis "sweet spot" and on one racetrack
groove to run, are unable to lean hard in the corners because of the nature of
the tires, and are forever plagued by the aero push and thus cannot run in dirty
air. Goodyear’s tire change at Loudon in November showed greater promise than
the hard tires used in 2001, but more is necessary, as the cars need to be able
to lean on tires harder through the turns for better control, and need the
ability to suck up to the leader in dirty air and pass. All this is necessary to
see a return to the kind of hard-fought races that made NASCAR in the 1970s and
’80s.
And then there is the matter of costs. It
is said that the economy is keeping sponsors out of the sport now, but this is
laughable. What is really driving them out is that the sport has reached a level
beyond absurdity with regard to costs. $15 million budgets are now commonplace,
and growing. Hut Stricklin’s sponsorship deal in Bill Davis’ #23 Dodge is
reportedly only about $6 million, a figure that ought to suffice to win the
championship but which is actually peripheral.
Even at the short track level costs are
astonishing – some short track motor programs I’ve read about are in the $20,000
range, and as one racing official put it, the number of parts in the engine
haven’t changed that much.
In the debate over Major League Baseball’s
foolish contraction proposal there has been talk of forcing the team owners to
finally open their books for public and political scrutiny and thus see where
the obscene totals they spend actually go. Such is a good idea for racing –
costs won’t be contained until the entire sport sees for itself where everyone
is spending the money they get, and thus can decipher where the best path to
reducing costs can be found.
The pending one-engine rule will help, albeit
not necessarily in 2002. Another area that is an obvious key to controlling
costs is the number of racecars a team has. I’ve yet to see a rational dissent
against making teams run one general purpose super-speedway car, one general
purpose short track car, and a backup for each.
Some are suggesting a revenue sharing plan
akin to the NFL. It is a good idea, though making it work with independent
contractors that are the teams may be trickier. There is also a double-edged
sword angle – Robert Yates once noted about his DiGard days, "If there is
such a thing as excess money, we had it." Driver incentive has rather
dramatically dulled the richer they have gotten as a group, and this dulling of
incentive has to change.
There are other areas, but making teams
open their books is a necessary place to start – an interesting analogy lies in
pole qualifying in the last two seasons. Penske Racing dominated qualifying in
2000, but NASCAR made them open their engines for public viewing at Sears Point,
and from there qualifying has become noticeably more competitive.
– NO DOMINATOR, AND COMEBACKS BY
HARD-LUCK TEAMS – Winston Cup saw nineteen different winners in 2001, and
such a record needs to be maintained or broken. The sport has not really seen a
dominator since Gordon’s 1998 season, and that is good. The sport needs to see
new faces emerge and also needs to see the comeback of hard-luck outfits. The
Wood Brothers’ win at Bristol encapsulated both – a new winner and the return of
an old guard with a glorious past. Andy Petree emerged as a winning team owner
but has also seen hard times in 2001, and a comeback by his teams is important
for the sport. Petty Enterprises struggled enormously in 2001 after doing the
most to get Dodge’s program going in 2000, and a comeback is important for
NASCAR, whose history parallels the Petty team’s. Morgan-McClure had a horrible
season, and as one of the last single-car teams has been a holdout against the
multi-car monster; another win by the McClures is a positive development.
The NFL is in what is called the parity
era, and it is the better for it; NASCAR’s parity era is also for the sport’s
betterment.
– A NEW CHAMPION – Directly related
to this area, the sport needs a new champion. In the 1970s there were four
different champions, in the 1980s there were six, and in the 1990s there were
five. Just as the sport got a boost from a debut champion ten years ago, so a
debut champion can help the sport again. Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Tony Stewart are
the obvious front runners there, and Kevin Harvick had a strong points showing
in his debut year. Sterling Marlin had a career-restarting season in 2001 and is
another point contender for 2002.
The new year always brings hope. 2002
needs to make good on hope.