NASCAR’S STATE OF DENIAL

I just read an article online that was touting how
competitive the season has been. From reading it, you’d swear that it was
written by NASCAR, based on how it toed the NASCAR party line. As a matter of
fact, it was written by NASCAR and was posted
on their web site.

The article says that the numbers show how competitive the
season has been. It quotes the fact that there have been six different winners
in six different races this season, the first time that’s happened since 1991.
The article then goes on to quote Rusty Wallace extensively. Wallace seems to
think that the shock rule at Daytona has something to do with the complaints
about lack of competition.

"Yeah, there were people complaining, but a lot of
that was before Atlanta. There’s no need for any more complaining. We’re having
awesome races now, and we’ll continue to do that," the article quotes Rusty
as saying. So according to Rusty, I’m supposed to shut up now. Let’s see, Dale
Jarrett blames the media for the boring races, and Wallace blames the shock rule
(that’s only been used in one race), for the boring races.

Huh?

The article then goes on to talk about how we’ve had five
different pole winners in the six races, and that qualifying has turned into its
own mini-race. Pardon me if I don’t think this matters one little bit.
Qualifying doesn’t pay any points, and the only one who gets any money out of
the deal is the pole winner. Heck, the qualifying scheme they use now is part
of the problem.

Next, Mr. and Ms. Mindless Racefan, NASCAR expects you to
believe that because each of the six races was dominated by a different driver,
the on-track competition is great and that statistic proves it. Hmm, let’s see
now… six drivers, of the fifty who have run in a race this year, have
dominated one race each. NASCAR’s conclusion is that that shows a lot of
diversity.

Huh?

Diversity isn’t the issue here; BORING RACES IS THE
ISSUE. Sorry to shout like that, but someone at NASCAR needs to get a clue.
I’m pretty sure the first two generations of the France family had that clue,
and realized that if races weren’t entertaining, no one would watch. I don’t
know about anyone else, but if I’m channel surfing while a driver is pulling
away from the field with a 10 second lead, I don’t see any NASCAR sponsors. But
if there are a half-dozen drivers dicing back and forth for the lead, then I’m
glued to the set, waiting to for the commercials to get over so I can see who’s
winning.

The article concludes with this line: "Likewise for
the season — the numbers never lie." The numbers may not lie, but they can
sure be made to mislead. A few weeks ago NASCAR was talking about how many lead
changes there’ve been in the first few races of the season. There’s lead
changes and there’s lead changes. Jeff Fuller led last week at Bristol. I
don’t remember him battling up there with Earnhardt, Gordon, Wallace, Park, or
the any of the rest of them. He led his lap under caution (if memory serves; it
certainly wasn’t a competitive lead change). Dave Marcis does this a lot. That
technically is a lead change, and the driver gets the five bonus points. But to
not take that type of lead change into account when you’re quoting
"statistics" is misleading.

Personally, I found the article insulting to my
intelligence. I guess NASCAR believes that if they
tell the fan it’s an exciting season enough times, the fans (you know who you
are, you’re the one who "NASCAR For Dummies" is aimed at) will come to
believe it’s true.

What’s the cure? I don’t know. But I do know that to fix a
problem you have to acknowledge that one exists. NASCAR’s propaganda to the
contrary and their constant state of denial aren’t the way to get it resolved.