How would you change NASCAR?

[MaskedRacer]

I am someone who has not followed NASCAR much at all since 2001. But I care enough to think that these changes could help:

1. Back to full season points standings.

2. Either reduce all races by 100 accept for Daytona 500 and Charlotte 600
or
For many of the Cup series races start holding double header races. Two 250 mile races. One on Sat. One on Sun. This will allow Grand National series to run weekend at separate tracks.

3. Get rid of stages

4. Try to reduce the number of caution flags during the race. I don't think fuel milage strategy matters much nowadays

5. Get rid of lucky dog rule.

6. More road races. Increase from the current 3 to at least 5: Daytona July race can be on the road course. Circuit of the Americas should replace one of the cookie cutter 1.5 mile track dates.

[fieldodreams79]

Just 3 things and it's fixed!

Dump the Chase to make a true championship again. It was changed to award winning and they've really not done that yet, so either change the points to show 100 pts for a win, 50 pts for second, then 20 or some incremental drop to where 0 points are awarded for 26 plus.
OR
Go back to pre Chase points as the OP says. I like the idea of double pts for the big races.

Fix the plate tracks. Your biggest race of the year is a complete joke; the other 3 plate races are dumpster fires.

Dump the stages

Fixed.

I'd like to see a dirt track, more short tracks, 2 races at Darlington, 1 at the Rock

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

I am someone who has not followed NASCAR much at all since 2001. But I care enough to think that these changes could help:

5. Get rid of lucky dog rule.

6. More road races. Increase from the current 3 to at least 5: Daytona July race can be on the road course. Circuit of the Americas should replace one of the cookie cutter 1.5 mile track dates.

Agree with you mostly . However:
Lucky dog I'm fine with outside the name, but I wouldn't care if it went away.

COTA for a race and Daytona July race on the road course? I think both would be awful. Tap another market like Portland for a road course. Road America, Mid Ohio and some others would be better, but I'd watch COTA over Kansas.

start holding double header races. Two 250 mile races. One on Sat. One on Sun.

I like this idea. Or make 2 or 3 races per year that have heat races. Definitely need to invert the fields for second race!!

[Purist]

1. Get rid of stages.
2. Go back to a full-season championship.
3. Get rid of those damn splitters on the front, and figure out how to balance the aero after you do that.
4. Fix the bloody plate races. (In theory, take the plates off, as they won't able to go much faster than in 1987 anyway.)
5. Replace three 1.5-mile dates with Rockingham, Milwaukee, and Pikes Peak.
6. Get Cup to a few more road courses. Road America, Montreal, or Mid Ohio would work. If they could swing it, I think the 3.0-mile course at Brainerd would be pretty good with these cars. In a pinch, and I know I'm dreaming, maybe revive the 4.0-mile Talladega roval.
7. Get someone to design something different in an oval, like the 1.5-mile version of Trenton. (I'm just using that as an example.)

[broadrun96]

And yet their big idea now is MORE plate races, the Winston (sorry, that name is staying) will have plates now with new tires and aero. With the fuel system now why a plate, they have to be able to modulate it without the stupid plate making pack racing

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

[NaBUru38]

Add Iowa, Mosport, Montreal, Road America and Mid-Ohio.

Xfinity / Cup should do two heat races (40 / 80 miles) with split grids on Saturday and a feature race on Sunday (200 / 300 miles).

Make the cars' glasshouse and rear end resemble the road cars, just like they already did with the front end.

[FormulaFox]

NASCAR needs a pretty big overhaul, but it all boils down to two things: The cars are boring, the schedule is boring.

How to fix? Well, first off, drop the stage racing, drop the overtime rules, reduce all races except the Daytona 500, Coke 600, and Brickyard 400 to 300 mile races. The Chase isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be, so flip a coin on whether or not to drop it.

Too many 1.5-mile cookie cutters on the schedule. Any such track that gets more than one race should run one of them either on the infield road courses or with a Trenton-style dogleg on the backstretch. The latter would probably be best since NASCAR does not need, and should not shift to, a terribly road course heavy schedule. They should look into Portland's road course to help try and tap the Pacific Northwest market.

They need some short tracks BETWEEN half a mile and a full mile - Iowa should be able to handle a Cup race.

A dirt track race or two would be nice as well.

The cars are a fair simpler to address: They need to lose a couple hundred pounds and shave a few inches off their height. Lowering the center of gravity and lightening them up a bit will make them much racier and more exciting(as well as allow bodywork that looks even MORE like the road cars).

Put simply, the NASCAR Cup cars should either look like the Euroseries cars or Trans Am cars without the wing, and should corner like an Australian Supercar.

[fieldodreams79]

New owners may make some changes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.538197f0aae0

And to paraphrase the article, it's be overdue for a sale and a change in management. Maybe it'll help to fix??

[Alfisti]

Let's hope so!

I agree with pretty much everything on here. To me the single biggest issue is the cars... the aero or whatever sucks, so that cars simply cannot run closely and fight for position. Thus the races can be processional and boring. Formula 1 has had this problem for a decade or more and it's duller than my drive home.

I saw a Youtube vid the other day comparing some racing from 08/09 with now and the old ones were way closer and thus exciting. Sort the cars out... they were fine throughout the 00's, then the car of tomorrow wasn't great and the current ones worse still. So go back to the regs from when Dale Sr, Rusty Wallace, DW were competing. Incorporate into those the safety lessons learned since.

Ditch the stages. They bring nothing. Consider trialling a couple of shorter races on the same weekend maybe?

Shorten race lengths... too long for me, doubt I'm alone.

Don't have repeat visits to the same tracks... Talladega once a year is enough, really is!

I kind of like the oval racing, not convinced NASCAR on non ovals is a good thing.

[fieldodreams79]

I'm fine with the race lengths, but wouldn't be opposed to seeing the big races, Daytona, Darlington, Charlotte, Atlanta and others keep the length, while the smaller races shortened some. The length of the races used to be a part of the real appeal / challenge when muscling the older cars with bias ply tires and no power steering and nursing a car to last. Now it seems it just prolongs the races unnecessarily as failures are few and the cars are much easier to handle. I say "easier". They're still a handful.

[Purist]

I think fixing the cars and getting a somewhat wider array of tracks will lessen the issue people currently might have with race lengths.

As for the race lengths, if a few of the 500s drop to 400s, I wouldn't necessarily mind. On the other hand, I'd kind of like to see the one race at Fontana go back to 500 from 400. I'd also be in favor of lengthening the Watkins Glen race to 250, or possibly even 300 miles. The end-of-season race at Riverside used to be 500km.

I commented in the "Future Grands Prix" thread in the F1 section that a lot of the dickering around with the aero rules that sanctioning bodies do often make the aero problems worse, because their first priority in major changes is often to lower speeds. The frequent result of that is an increase in drag, a worsening of the L/D, and therefore, a relative increase in wake turbulence.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

I'm fine with the race lengths,

So am I, and I imagine the same goes for MOST of us around here.

Problem is...We don't matter. Not kidding here; the serious race fans aren't what NASCAR needs to worry about. They need to stop the hemorrhage of departing departing fans, and catering to the hardcore race fans isn't going to do it. The casual fan taste is changing, and the series has to change to appeal to today's sensibilities, and every race being super-long is not what the modern prospective fan wants.

Race length is the most common thing prospective NASCAR fans identify as keeping them away from the sport today. Even people who took a look and liked the racing regularly say the races are too long for their liking - a fair chunk of those do, however, claim that 500 miles is a good length for SPECIAL events.

As while a great deal of us here may be okay with the race lengths, whoever buys NASCAR is going to have to shorten the majority of them if they want to attract new eyeballs.

[S griffin]

Three things NASCAR needs to get rid of
1) The chase
2) The stages
3) The cone of silence it has on drivers criticising the series

[TheMightyM]

NASCAR has a “how can you miss me if I don't go away” problem — it’s just hard to miss NASCAR when the off season is less than three months and races often run 3 hours+.

1. 38 race weekends are just too many — reduce the schedule to 28 to 30 points-paying races.
2. Make (most) races shorter. There's nothing wrong with a good two hour race.

It follows from this that NASCAR's unloved attempts to produce interest in their bloated schedule should also disappear. By that I mean:

3. Get rid stages.
4. Get rid of the Chase

And also:
5. Add a couple of more road course.

[FormulaFox]

Regarding the Chase, since I see it popping up so often, I think it's worth keeping in mind that it, by and large, is not really an issue. NASCAR's peak, 2003-2008, only featured one season without the Chase format, so it clearly isn't enough of an issue on it's own to turn people away.

But it's definitely something contingent on the schedule size. There's not much point to it if the schedule drops below 30 races, and even if it drops to 30, the Chase would still need to be shortened. In point of fact, even with the schedule as is I think it should only be 8 races instead of 10.

The Chase is certainly nowhere close to as big an issue as stage racing, which when you really get down to it is just an attempt to address a problem that would be far better addressed by shortening the majority of the races.

Put simply, some of us here consider the Chase as a MUCH bigger issue than it really is, and I really think that when trying to come up with ideas to fix NASCAR, the focus should be on just about everything BUT the Chase. Any changes to it should be made after consideration of how it lines up with other changes to the schedule.

[fieldodreams79]

Only problem with that theory is NASCAR peaked before the Chase. The Chase is the foundation of the problems with the die hards of the series. Stupid championship? Maybe that can be overlooked, as long as your on track product is still good. It's not. Couple a farcical championship with the ludicrous race rules that only apply to this series... It's all a hot mess, but any attempt to completely dismiss the Chase as an issue is a complete oversight.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Only problem with that theory is NASCAR peaked before the Chase.

Not true. NASCAR peaked in 2005/6(depending on who you ask), and the drop in viewership/attendance didn't begin in earnest until 2008.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Not true. NASCAR peaked in 2005/6(depending on who you ask), and the drop in viewership/attendance didn't begin in earnest until 2008.

Not true? Whatever. If you want to split hairs about a "plateau" of years, go right ahead, but don't try to spin the Chase being so small. THAT is not true aa it's the absolute basis of the decline.

[Purist]

Well, actually, a big part of the decline was the recession, coupled with the subsequent switch to cable networks for a lot of the races.

For a while there, starting in 2001, you knew, week-in, week-out, that most of the races (27 of 36, plus the pre-Daytona non-points event) would be on one of two stations that you were basically guaranteed to have. FOX took the season up through Sonoma/Daytona, and NBC had the rest, plus the following year's Daytona 500 every other season. Quite a few people didn't have cable then, and even fewer have it now. Once you broke their viewing habit, and many of them couldn't watch the races on the new stations, what would you expect to happen to viewership?

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Purist

Well, actually, a big part of the decline was the recession, coupled with the subsequent switch to cable networks for a lot of the races.

For a while there, starting in 2001, you knew, week-in, week-out, that most of the races (27 of 36, plus the pre-Daytona non-points event) would be on one of two stations that you were basically guaranteed to have. FOX took the season up through Sonoma/Daytona, and NBC had the rest, plus the following year's Daytona 500 every other season. Quite a few people didn't have cable then, and even fewer have it now. Once you broke their viewing habit, and many of them couldn't watch the races on the new stations, what would you expect to happen to viewership?

Sure the recession played a role, but other series have come out as strong or stronger. Same with the TV deals but these are good points well made as there's many factors thrown in around the time of the Chase starting.

Shortly after, the removal of the 2nd Darlington race and The Rock from the schedule and adding in the cookie cutters don't help but it all starts in the early 2000s....

[TheMightyM]

NASACR's decline has many causes but let's not forget that a major part of the problem is simply demographics. The sport has traditionally done very well with rural Southern white males. That's a shrinking (and aging) portion of the population. At the same time, the series hasn't done a good enough job of attracting fans beyond its traditional core.

Also, it didn't help that NASCAR over expanded in the 1990s and early 2000s. Too many races and race tracks with too many seats makes it more difficult to make the changes the series now needs to make.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by TheMightyM

NASACR's decline has many causes but let's not forget that a major part of the problem is simply demographics. The sport has traditionally done very well with rural Southern white males. That's a shrinking (and aging) portion of the population. At the same time, the series hasn't done a good enough job of attracting fans beyond its traditional core.

Stockcar racing in the south has been hit tremendously, in general, and part of this could be attributed to the population shrinking, for sure. However.....

Also, it didn't help that NASCAR over expanded in the 1990s and early 2000s. Too many races and race tracks with too many seats makes it more difficult to make the changes the series now needs to make.

^through this (what I've referred to as nascar's "manifest destiny" in the past), they completely alienated their core fanbase, and subsequently, lost much more than they gained.

[Purist]

Southern short tracks haven't been the bread and butter of the schedule for 40-50 years though. Also, Kansas and Kentucky don't exactly seem culturally out of place.

Phoenix is apparently doing well enough that they consider the remodel to be justified. Las Vegas has the Busch brothers. And California is down to two races. I think back in the '70s, between Riverside and Ontario, they had as many as four races out there; I'd have to check if NASCAR ever visited Hanford back then.

So it seems like if there was going to be a mass alienation like that, it would have happened before even that famous CBS broadcast of the 1979 Daytona 500. And of course, the flip of the coin is that the series wouldn't have been commercially viable as a major, nationwide entity unless it did branch out significntly beyond the old South.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Not true? Whatever. If you want to split hairs about a "plateau" of years, go right ahead, but don't try to spin the Chase being so small. THAT is not true aa it's the absolute basis of the decline.

No it is not. The Chase has little, if anything, to do with the decline. Complaints about the Chase were incredibly uncommon until Jimmie Johnson's run of five championships was nearing it's end, when a lot of fans did the math and discovered he'd have won only one of those five had the Chase format not existed. By the time complaints about the Chase were anything notable, the decline was already well udnerway.

Complaints about the Chase are almost entirely trying to use it as a scapegoat for NASCAR's numerous other problems.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

No it is not. The Chase has little, if anything, to do with the decline. Complaints about the Chase were incredibly uncommon until Jimmie Johnson's run of five championships was nearing it's end, when a lot of fans did the math and discovered he'd have won only one of those five had the Chase format not existed. By the time complaints about the Chase were anything notable, the decline was already well udnerway.

Not sure where you were but amongst all the fans I knew and talked too, the reaction was an immediate disdain at the mere announcement of moving to a "playoff system". The only people that liked it were the NASCAR brass and media that was forced to pump it up. Out of the gate, no one cared for it

Complaints about the Chase are almost entirely trying to use it as a scapegoat for NASCAR's numerous other problems.

BS. Pure BS. There's certainly many other problems as mentioned by everyone here but also mentioned by everyone else as a desired change is the Chase, but you know more than we do, obviously.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Not sure where you were but amongst all the fans I knew and talked too, the reaction was an immediate disdain at the mere announcement of moving to a "playoff system". The only people that liked it were the NASCAR brass and media that was forced to pump it up. Out of the gate, no one cared for it

Almost nobody in my direct circle of associates had any issue with it, but most of them didn't care about NASCAR to begin with, so not exactly a good point of comparison.

The thing is, I make it a point to look BEYOND the people in my immediate area anyway. Listening only to those you talk to regularly is effectively an echo chamber as people around you tend to share identical viewpoints. In short, never consider those around you to be an accurate measure of anything.

Unlike stage racing, the Chase was rather well-received when it debuted, with most either giving ti a thumbs up or a "wait for a few seasons and see how things develop" approach.

BS. Pure BS. There's certainly many other problems as mentioned by everyone here but also mentioned by everyone else as a desired change is the Chase, but you know more than we do, obviously.

Not BS at all. The thing is, those of us talking here do NOT represent the majority of the viewership, not even once you take the rapid decline into account. We are but a few, and while a large chunk of this few may dislike the Chase itself,

Outside of this site, the bulk of the complaints I've seen about the Chase that have developed over the years don't even center on the Chase itself, but on how much they tried to gimmick it up and change things to get NASCAR's precious popular drivers into it with some level of consistency, which was often viewed as effectively destroying what the Chase was.

Basically, they're not upset at the CHASE, they're upset at NASCAR's fondness for gimmickry. But they all too often bottle that up into complaining about the Chase itself like it was the only gimmickry they engaged in - thus using the Chase as a scapegoat for what they ACTUALLY have an issue with.