Pre-Darlington And More Schedule Whining
"Darlington used to be a disaster to try to get out of, now it’s like
coming out of the supermarket." So wrote Richard Petty in 1986 about the
Lady In Black. Darlington’s reputation as the nastiest track in the sport
reappeared in March with Tony Stewart’s crash with 14 others off Two – take note
that this crash was far more serious than any of those Talladega big ones so
many deplore.
Despite that, though, Darlington doesn’t have quite the fear factor it once
had. Cautions that were once to be expected after every 40 or so laps are now
rare. Nowadays it isn’t uncommon for a Darlington race to go without much in the
way of crashes. The heat that once led to multiple relief drivers doesn’t faze
that many drivers anymore.
In short, while actually winning there is still tough, driving it is a lot
easier than it once was.
Jeff Gordon is listed as the favorite right now due to his Bristol win. Rusty
Wallace, though, is looking for revenge and also for his first ever win at
Darlington, a track at which he’s never shown any consistent muscle.
Darlington’s two annual dates remain a source of contention among the wuss
brigade and their suck-ups in the media, such as Lee Spencer’s pathetic excuse
for a column1.
The 2003 schedule again has 36 races, with the final 20 run on consecutive
weekends. Only minor changes are made, such as the move of the National 500 to
Saturday night.
"But as competitive as the sport has become, teams need at least one
weekend off down the stretch." Actually they routinely show that they don’t
need such. Spencer also ludicrously suggests moving the Kansas 400 to late
spring, never mind that that time frame in that area belongs to Indy.
Teams are of course accustomed to such travel and know what to expect upon
signing up for duty. Yet Spencer quotes insiders as saying "the divorce
rate among crew members is rising. One top-ten team’s road squad experienced
three splits in the last 18 months."
Does it occur to Lee Spencer and the other wuss brigadiers that such problems
are the concern of the individuals involved and NOT the sport’s? And do such
divorces really affect how they do their jobs? We’ve seen a lot of speculation
that Jeff Gordon’s divorce has affected his driving, except that the wholesale
mediocrity of GM’s program has far more to do with that than getting what’s
coming to him from Brooke.
Chad Knaus wants to keep his guys fresh, so he’s ended testing for the season
– a decision that is already haunting him as his team has faltered rather
steadily over the last few weeks.
It is true that crewmen don’t have the aircraft that allow drivers and other
big-level honchos to fly about the country at will. Yet such a truth ignores
that such will always be the case – racing life is difficult and won’t change
with a lesser schedule.
Lee Spencer, you insult basic intelligence by writing, "The Pocono 400
has a nice ring to it." No it doesn’t – it is a cheapening of the race, a
wussification. Five hundred miles is a superior test of machinery and driving
than 400 miles. It is NOT too long; these teams today just aren’t as tough as
the greats of the past, and that’s why they’re whining about it. Shorter races
don’t save one dime of money, and there is no 400-miler anywhere that has ever
been a better race than a 500-miler.
Large, untapped markets in Cincinnati, Nashville, and St Louis do not
"make more sense" than Darlington, Dover, and Rockingham – yes, they
are larger markets, but they are not outside of the range of established races.
Nashville can go to the tracks at Darlington, Bristol, and Rockingham; St. Louis
can go to Michigan or Indy; Cincy can go to tracks within reasonable range.
The races don’t "have" to come to those areas. Rockingham, Darlington,
and Dover have two dates because they DESERVE them. They are good racetracks
with good fan draw and great history. Cutting dates does them no good, and
doesn’t do the sport any good, a lesson learned but foolishly ignored by the
North Wilkesboro debacle.
There are no cracks in NASCAR’s foundation by the schedule, so there is no
reason why NASCAR can’t just add races – Winston Cup can handle a 43-race
schedule. Teams and the sport in general need to toughen themselves up, not
wussify themselves. Leaving the schedule alone is a good start.
Jeff Hammond found it regrettable that Bob Bahre had to publicly defend his
New Hampshire track and slam some drivers. Actually, a track promoter slamming
drivers is a refreshing and needed change.
The drivers have got to be told off on their whining, their moaning, and
their lack of fire. Fan throwing things on the track at Daytona was regrettable,
but the drivers deserved it. Drivers exaggerated the problems with the surface
at NHIS last time out and ought to admit to themselves that their racecars, not
the track, are the problem.
I hear fans say how they respect the drivers because they’re risking there
lives out there. So what? That doesn’t give them immunity from criticism. And
when they make arguments that have no merit and which are usually offered in
less-than-sincere faith, they need to be called on it. The whining about NHIS is
never offered in any good faith, the whining about Talladega is never offered in
good faith, and few of the other standard criticisms are offered in good faith.
Warranted criticism is one thing, exaggeration is something else. Some such
exaggeration is shown by Orlena Miller2.
First Miller attacks the constant rule changes by NASCAR because changes
supposedly nullify extensive testing done by teams. This is an exaggeration;
such changes usually don’t change cars to where testing data can’t be applied.
The next criticism is that "the Daytona Gang’s meddling is always done
in the name of ‘parity…….This sounds a lot like IROC…….When was the last
time an IROC race drew a crowd of 147,000?"3
IROC is a legitimate racing formula that is insufficiently marketed, has far too
few teams, and far too few races. An IROCized NASCAR is an exaggeration of
NASCAR’s quest for parity, but the idea is a good one – where teams can go for
the win and not be impeded by their car makes – who can really object to that?
Eliminating impediments to going for the win is what competition rules ought to
be doing, and is what makes all that low-down force testing so wrong.
"And is there any doubt NASCAR sold their soul…..with the present
broadcast package?" There is grave doubt about that, because the TV package
is not a problem. The reference here is to Kevin Harvick’s suspension versus
Tony Stewart’s fine – two obviously different incidents that demanded obviously
different punishments. That is why there is the "inconsistency" here.
Miller also bemoans the endless rumors about so many teams. We’ve seen with
the Andy Petree-Jerry Jones deal the risks of such rumors – what was considered
by all to be a done deal has instead collapsed, much as the done-deal of Ricky
Rudd and Chip Ganassi proved to be. While rumors such as that Petty Enterprises
will contract to two teams in 2003 or that Tony Stewart will quit NASCAR need to
be treated as nothing but rumors, it is inevitable that we have this situation.
Are we living in the worst of times in NASCAR? With costs beyond all reason, sub-par
racing where a track like Bristol sees 16 lead changes in a combined 750 laps of
Grand National and Winston Cup, drivers screaming for a change from roof
spoilers to aero-clean bodies because the racing was "too intense"
(and then seeing a huge increase in wrecks over when they ran roof spoilers),
hands-on teams like Andy Petree, Petty Enterprises, Brett Bodine Racing, Travis
Carter Racing, and Wood Brothers Racing either being squeezed out or forced to
become satrapies of gigantic factories like Hendrick Motorsports and Roush
Racing that are pricing the sport still higher – and effectively pricing it out
of reach of more and more teams – then yes, we are living in the worst of times.
The direction of proposed changes to make it better doesn’t instill confidence,
either, as retrograde routes long discredited in real world competition – aka
the low-down force logic of the 5 & 5 rule – keep reappearing despite
experience.
Can it get better? In spite of everything, yes it can.