On Jul 6, 5:35 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> This is the "dead zone" in the American sports calendar year so of course > NASCAR would not want to run any races and attract any attention.
> But then when college and pro football starts NASCAR would not dream of > having an off week.
> Good thinking there. Enjoy your vacation.
The dumbest thing they did was not to lift the "impound" after the practice was rain-cancelled. I couldn't believe they were sticking with their stupid impound rules.
> This is the "dead zone" in the American sports calendar year so of course > NASCAR would not want to run any races and attract any attention.
> But then when college and pro football starts NASCAR would not dream of > having an off week.
> Good thinking there. Enjoy your vacation.
The dumbest thing they did was not to lift the "impound" after the practice was rain-cancelled. I couldn't believe they were sticking with their stupid impound rules.
N.
I do not disagree with you but the impound rule is rather esoteric and does not effect teevee ratings quite as much as the presence of football. The teevee ratings drive the sponsorship and the sponsorship drives the race cars. Having an off week in July is not exactly the smartest thing I have ever seen in sports. People do watch teevee and spend money on stuff all 52 weeks of the year.
<nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote: >On Jul 6, 5:35 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote: >> This is the "dead zone" in the American sports calendar year so of course >> NASCAR would not want to run any races and attract any attention.
>> But then when college and pro football starts NASCAR would not dream of >> having an off week.
>> Good thinking there. Enjoy your vacation.
>The dumbest thing they did was not to lift the "impound" after the >practice was rain-cancelled. I couldn't believe they were sticking >with their stupid impound rules.
>N.
I am hoping that the impound and "set testing dates and tracks" both go away after this year. The impound stuff doesn't appear to be acheiving anything other than assuring that the few small/underfunded teams left stand no chance at making the race AND THEN being competitive after getting in since they have to go to the garage after the first race lap and re-setup their cars for the actual racing conditions and away from their qualifying setup.
And I think they should go back to the old testing methods. 7 open test dates "per car" (28 per 4 car team) and give the rookies back their extra tests and or extra track time at tracks they've never been to in a Cup car before.
> >On Jul 6, 5:35 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote: > >> This is the "dead zone" in the American sports calendar year so of course > >> NASCAR would not want to run any races and attract any attention.
> >> But then when college and pro football starts NASCAR would not dream of > >> having an off week.
> >> Good thinking there. Enjoy your vacation.
> >The dumbest thing they did was not to lift the "impound" after the > >practice was rain-cancelled. I couldn't believe they were sticking > >with their stupid impound rules.
> >N.
> I am hoping that the impound and "set testing dates and tracks" both > go away after this year. The impound stuff doesn't appear to be > acheiving anything other than assuring that the few small/underfunded > teams left stand no chance at making the race AND THEN being > competitive after getting in since they have to go to the garage after > the first race lap and re-setup their cars for the actual racing > conditions and away from their qualifying setup.
> And I think they should go back to the old testing methods. 7 open > test dates "per car" (28 per 4 car team) and give the rookies back > their extra tests and or extra track time at tracks they've never been > to in a Cup car before.
I generally agree with your points, however, I would like to see some kind of step-down reduction in tests for multi-car teams.
For example:
1 car team - 7 total tests 2 car team - 12 total tests 3 car team - 16 total tests 4 car team - 19 total tests
Multi-car teams already enjoy a huge advantage due to pooled resources. I'd like to see changes to reduce that advantage.
> And I think they should go back to the old testing methods. 7 open > test dates "per car" (28 per 4 car team) and give the rookies back > their extra tests and or extra track time at tracks they've never been > to in a Cup car before.
The thing that I find very encouraging is, they've asked the teams "what do you want to do". Now, of course there's no guarantee they'll actually listen, but if the majority of the teams say "one session per track" or "20 per owner" or whatever, and that's what NASCAR does, it'd be hard to say it wasn't fair.
