One of the main drawbacks of trying to build the fan base is convincing people it's worth it to sit in front of the television for four hours or more to watch cars drive in a circle. And really, for the first 350 miles or so of a 500 mile race, that's all you see.

A 500 mile race is one of endurance and strategy, not so much car to car racing. The number one goal of any driver and team is to be in position come the last 100 to 150 miles to contend for the win. This style of racing takes away from the excitement and urgency that competitors and fans alike should feel when participating in or watching a race.

I propose, for the purposes of our discussion, that the race distances of a majority of races be reduced, from 400-500 miles, to 300-400 miles. I will not specifically cite examples beyond the ones I will propose herewith:

Auto Club 500 @ California - Reduce distance to 300 miles
Kobalt Tools 500 @ Atlanta - Reduce distance to 350-400 miles
Pocono 500 @ Pocono - Reduce distance to 300 miles
Dodge Charger 500 @ Darlington - Reduce distance to 350 miles

Not all races should have their distances scaled back. Big races like the Daytona 500, Allstate 400, and Coca-Cola 600 should keep their present distances. Variety is good, and presents a challenge to drivers and teams alike.

Let's examine the benefits (in no particular order of importance):

Increased emphasis on qualifying: Because race distances are shorter, the benefit of a prime qualifying position will be much greater. In a 300 mile race, qualifying in the back half of the field will present a greater challenge than in a 500 mile event. Drivers who qualify poorly will have to work harder and faster to make their way to the front. This might add excitement to the qualifying sessions.

Increased Urgency/Excitement: In a shorter race drivers must be more urgent in their driving to position themselves for the end. The racing might be harder and more intense because drivers know they can not afford to fall back and *wait* for the conditions to improve. This will likely produce better on-track action and more excitement for the fans.

Attractiveness: Now that the brunt of the races won't require dedicating Sunday to sitting on the couch for half the day, the sport might look more attractive to prospective fans and existing fans, new and old.

These are only a few of the benefits I can think of right now, but if this turns into a solid discussion we will come up with more.

And it's only right that we look at the negatives:

Fewer advertising opportunities: A shorter broadcast means fewer opportunities for advertisement. If demand for advertising on a NASCAR broadcast remains the same, the price for an ad spot will increase due to reduced supply. Depending on ratings trends, this could be a positive or negative for all parties involved. If more fans watch, advertisers would be willing to pay the higher prices for fewer advertising spots. If ratings remain the same, the value in buying an ad spot might be reduced. If that's the case, we might see networks charging lower prices for ad spots and increasing the commercial time relative to the duration of the broadcast. So, instead of 30% of the race under commercial, it might rise to 40% so FOX/Whoever can maintain their current margins.

More accidents: With increased urgency and harder racing may come more accidents relative to race distance. To most this is a negative, but to some it might be viewed as a positive.



In conclusion, the ultimate goal is to facilitate a more competitive environment by changing how drivers and teams race. Ideally, these changes would result in better racing, greater accessibility, and more fan interest. Fans and business interests alike would find more value in this type of environment than they do in the current environment of long, drawn out 500 milers.

Thoughts?

I agree totally with you, you certainly have thought this through. thanks bob

sorry... can't go along with this (like any of us have any control) big tracks with 300 mile races???? that's the nationwide series... Cali... 150 laps?? pocono 120 laps??? no thanx...the point of cup racing IS most definitely part endurance... both man and machine...rf

I love the long distances. When there's an IRL race on during the Cup race, I can see the start of the Cup race, the whole IRL race and the end of the Cup race. It works out great.

I agree with what you've posted for the fans. I myself use a DVR and fast forward through the BS commercials. Saved me about an hr on Saturdays race.

I'll play the devils advocate for the track owners on just one point. Shorter races = fewer sales at the concession stands. Anybody have a clue what concession stand sales are at any one of the tracks? I'd like a small piece of that....

Another Bargument.

17isdewalt - 14 April 2008 02:51 PM

sorry... can't go along with this (like any of us have any control) big tracks with 300 mile races???? that's the nationwide series... Cali... 150 laps?? pocono 120 laps??? no thanx...the point of cup racing IS most definitely part endurance... both man and machine...rf

I enjoy long distances too, but would enjoy if we had more diversity. A 300 mile sprint is a welcome change from a 500 mile snoozer at Pocono.

HoytShooter - 14 April 2008 02:56 PM

I agree with what you've posted for the fans. I myself use a DVR and fast forward through the BS commercials. Saved me about an hr on Saturdays race.

I'll play the devils advocate for the track owners on just one point. Shorter races = fewer sales at the concession stands. Anybody have a clue what concession stand sales are at any one of the tracks? I'd like a small piece of that....

They do make a ton of money off of concessions.

Looking at the most recent 10-K for International Speedway Corp., $84.16 million (or 10.3%) of the $816.56 million in revenues for 2007 came from food, beverage, and merchandise sales.

I have to agree with this. There's nothing wrong with 6 big races a year; but more than that takes away the 'specialness' of them.

Steve

A lot of good points, I agree. Although in the examples of California and Darlington, they'd have to cut down the Nationwide races by the same percentage.

Talon64 - 14 April 2008 03:07 PM

A lot of good points, I agree. Although in the examples of California and Darlington, they'd have to cut down the Nationwide races by the same percentage.

Right. That's another issue that would have to be addressed if the Cup distance is reduced. As a general rule, I would say keeping the Nationwide races at least 100 miles shorter would be fine.