How would you change NASCAR?

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

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.

Umm, yeah I have and always talk and see things "outside my circle" so go ahead and give the underhanded insult that I'm ignorant a rest and save speeches for another day, please.

The point was, in case you missed it, is I live in the traditional stockcar country. The majority of lifelong fans aired their displeasure immediately in my circle and in this region, which at the time was the majority of fans, like it or not. Shortly after, again, to a multitude of issues, including the Chase, started leaving.

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.

Well received? Wrong. Not repeating my previous comments made outside my "little circle", but a small minority was in favor. Stages? An additional gimmick added to the other gimmicks. IE Chase. Get it? Probably not.

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.

Spin it however you please. Still BS to say the Chase is not an issue at all and to call it a scapegoat. It's a part of the many problems. I'm not saying it's the main issue, but it is an issue, which you completely dance around admitting.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Umm, yeah I have and always talk and see things "outside my circle" so go ahead and give the underhanded insult that I'm ignorant a rest and save speeches for another day, please.

The point was, in case you missed it, is I live in the traditional stockcar country. The majority of lifelong fans aired their displeasure immediately in my circle and in this region, which at the time was the majority of fans, like it or not. Shortly after, again, to a multitude of issues, including the Chase, started leaving.


Well received? Wrong. Not repeating my previous comments made outside my "little circle", but a small minority was in favor. Stages? An additional gimmick added to the other gimmicks. IE Chase. Get it? Probably not.



Spin it however you please. Still BS to say the Chase is not an issue at all and to call it a scapegoat. It's a part of the many problems. I'm not saying it's the main issue, but it is an issue, which you completely dance around admitting.

If you honestly think the Chase was widely hated from the start, you weren't looking that far past your circle. There's no spin here at all - the Chase is being used as a scapegoat for the numerous smaller things that are what actually bother most people.

[FormulaFox]

Getting back to the intended topic of this thread -what each of us would actually change rather than what people by and large consider to be a problem- this is what a Cup Series Camaro SHOULD look like:



Maybe with more of a widebody to make it look more racey, but far more along these lines than the current Cup cars.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

If you honestly think the Chase was widely hated from the start, you weren't looking that far past your circle. There's no spin here at all - the Chase is being used as a scapegoat for the numerous smaller things that are what actually bother most people.

So thankful to have such open minded people in the forum that can paint others into the corners they belong!

And the other gimmicks you quoted came well after your previously decline years so your timeline is all jacked up. You are using stages, introduced 2 years ago as a scapegoat for a decline in 2008. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but Dr. Who can't figure that one out.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

So thankful to have such open minded people in the forum that can paint others into the corners they belong!

And the other gimmicks you quoted came well after your previously decline years so your timeline is all jacked up. You are using stages, introduced 2 years ago as a scapegoat for a decline in 2008.

First of all, I'm not using stages as a reason for the decline. I'm using it as an example of something that has been genuinely widely despised from the start, whereas the Chase was not.

That said, I am well aware that the gimmicks I note most people don't like came to be AFTER the Chase was implemented. That is, after all, my entire point; The Chase predates the decline by four years, but most of the most widely hated gimmicks do not.

When you push most people to be more detailed than "The Chase" in detailing what they don't like about NASCAR, they tend to not cite any issue with the idea Chase, but the numerous gimmicks that came along AFTER the Chase was implemented - though these gimmicks are oftentimes some of the changes to how Chase positions are earned, they are far from exclusive to the complaints. "Get rid of the Chase" is frequently used as shorthand for a bunch of smaller gimmicks that are sometimes, but not always, a change that was made to the Chase subsequent to it's implementation.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

First of all, I'm not using stages as a reason for the decline. I'm using it as an example of something that has been genuinely widely despised from the start, whereas the Chase was not.

That said, I am well aware that the gimmicks I note most people don't like came to be AFTER the Chase was implemented. That is, after all, my entire point; The Chase predates the decline by four years, but most of the most widely hated gimmicks do not.

When you push most people to be more detailed than "The Chase" in detailing what they don't like about NASCAR, they tend to not cite any issue with the idea Chase, but the numerous gimmicks that came along AFTER the Chase was implemented - though these gimmicks are oftentimes some of the changes to how Chase positions are earned, they are far from exclusive to the complaints. "Get rid of the Chase" is frequently used as shorthand for a bunch of smaller gimmicks that are sometimes, but not always, a change that was made to the Chase subsequent to it's implementation.

First of all and only of all, you continue to mention gimmicks as an issue, which is exactly what the Chase is but it's not an issue because you've talked to the most people, right?

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

First of all and only of all, you continue to mention gimmicks as an issue, which is exactly what the Chase is but it's not an issue because you've talked to the most people, right?

No, gimmicks are NOT an issue; Racing(and sports in general to be frank) are just a series of gimmicks tied together. It's SPECIFIC gimmicks that are the problem.

I haven't talked to "the most" people, but I've talked to a VERY wide array of people and gotten a very different set of responses than you have. Whatever the reason for it is irrelevant; Based on everything I've seen, the Chase is NOT the issue people here are making it out to be.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

No, gimmicks are NOT an issue; Racing(and sports in general to be frank) are just a series of gimmicks tied together. It's SPECIFIC gimmicks that are the problem.

A specific gimmicks that started with the original specific gimmick called "THE CHASE"? Thanks for making my point.

I haven't talked to "the most" people, but I've talked to a VERY wide array of people and gotten a very different set of responses than you have. Whatever the reason for it is irrelevant; Based on everything I've seen, the Chase is NOT the issue people here are making it out to be.

BUT you HAVE talked to ALL the right people, apparently. I like how ALL CAPS make one's POINTS seem more valid.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

A specific gimmicks that started with the original specific gimmick called "THE CHASE"? Thanks for making my point.

No, I didn't prove your point in any way shape or form - it's rather interesting that you accuse me of "spinning" the matter then go and do exactly that to try and twist my point to your own ends.

But if you're going to continue to actively ignore my point, then so be it - it doesn't change what I actually said, and we've let this digression last too long, anyway.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

No, I didn't prove your point in any way shape or form - it's rather interesting that you accuse me of "spinning" the matter then go and do exactly that to try and twist my point to your own ends.

But if you're going to continue to actively ignore my point, then so be it - it doesn't change what I actually said, and we've let this digression last too long, anyway.

Ignoring your point that the Chase has nothing to do with the decline? Give me a break. I've provided PLENTY of thoughts contrary yours and you've merely restated your SAME statements with differing terms and false narratives about ME personally. Then, per your usual, YOU state something about how WE have digressed too long.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Ignoring your point that the Chase has nothing to do with the decline? Give me a break. I've provided PLENTY of thoughts contrary yours and you've merely restated your SAME statements with differing terms

All I have done is point out how different the things I've seen have been, and you've repeatedly tried to claim that it can't be true solely because you've encountered different opinions.

and false narratives about ME personally.

Completely untrue. I have not made any false "narratives" about you or anyone else - you're trying to twist my statements yet again.

Then, per your usual, YOU state something about how WE have digressed too long.

Yes, WE have. You're just as guilty of dragging it out as I am.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

All I have done is point out how different the things I've seen have been, and you've repeatedly tried to claim that it can't be true solely because you've encountered different opinions.

Sure have a differing opinion, but when you're countered, try a different point rather than saying the same thing over and over with differing terms. This is how you get caught in this stupid back n forth always.

Completely untrue. I have not made any false "narratives" about you or anyone else - you're trying to twist my statements yet again.

Sure you have. You have made false statements about how my opinion was formed and informed me of how to properly form the most accurate opinion, like yours.

Yes, WE have. You're just as guilty of dragging it out as I am.

Nice use of bold, italics and caps there. I guess it's true to be us both!

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Sure have a differing opinion, but when you're countered, try a different point rather than saying the same thing over and over with differing terms. This is how you get caught in this stupid back n forth always.

Keep laughing - it's only proving that you've been actively ignoring my points, and you're only proving that you too are guilty of dragging this out as well.

Sure you have. You have made false statements about how my opinion was formed and informed me of how to properly form the most accurate opinion, like yours.

False. You made a comment that I misinterpreted as implying you limited yourself to the people around you, and I explained why that's a poor idea. You then elaborated that you didn't limit yourself to the people immediately around you, and I at no point after that asserted differently. While I still commented on the wide ranges of people I've talked to in forming my opinion, I at no point after your elaboration claimed or implied you were doing differently.


If you genuinely consider misinterpretation to be the same as "making false statements," then there's no point in continuing any form of debate, as you will be able to cast any disagreement as such and I refuse to engage in debates under such circumstances.

Nice use of bold, italics and caps there. I guess it's true to be us both!

You haven't made any attempt to get back on topic, so yes, you are as guilty as I am no matter how much you want to deny it, and criticizing my use of emphasis instead of trying to refute the assertion only reinforces this fact.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Keep laughing - it's only proving that you've been actively ignoring my points, and you're only proving that you too are guilty of dragging this out as well.





False. You made a comment that I misinterpreted as implying you limited yourself to the people around you, and I explained why that's a poor idea. You then elaborated that you didn't limit yourself to the people immediately around you, and I at no point after that asserted differently. While I still commented on the wide ranges of people I've talked to in forming my opinion, I at no point after your elaboration claimed or implied you were doing differently.


If you genuinely consider misinterpretation to be the same as "making false statements," then there's no point in continuing any form of debate, as you will be able to cast any disagreement as such and I refuse to engage in debates under such circumstances.






You haven't made any attempt to get back on topic, so yes, you are as guilty as I am no matter how much you want to deny it, and criticizing my use of emphasis instead of trying to refute the assertion only reinforces this fact.

I'd like to be the first to congratulate you on trying to stay on topic so rigidly, and apologize to you and all the others for steering us so far off course. Please elaborate and provide more valuable insight on how the looks of the cars will improve the series so.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

I'd like to be the first to congratulate you on trying to stay on topic so rigidly, and apologize to you and all the others for steering us so far off course. Please elaborate and provide more valuable insight on how the looks of the cars will improve the series so.

Despite the obvious sarcasm, I'll nonetheless note that I did not, and have never said, that the looks of the car will improve the series. They're one aspect that can help attract some eyeballs, but I never make a big deal out of aesthetics alone.

Yes, even in THIS matter, where I have already and will in the future make some statements that seem to imply differently, it actually just happens to be a case where the technical changes I feel are needed(lower, wider cars most specifically) happens to line up with an aesthetic style that would be an added bonus.

To my immediate recollection there is only ONE case in the entirety of motorsports where I believe a purely aesthetic change is needed - and even then it's more due to the issues of the series' identity and marketability than the actual aesthetics of the cars in and of itself.

[MaskedRacer]

I agree with the comment about NASCAR over expanding in the 2000's especially. Races are too long as well. Indycar does fine with 200 mile races. Also too many caution flags.

The only series that should have long races is IMSA. I'm a sportscar fan more than anything else and we complain about the races having too many safety car periods a lot!

NASCAR should at least consider going back to the original Chase format that as used for the first time. 10 drivers and 10 races. But the best idea is a full season championship again.

[TheMightyM]

While we're on the topic, NASCAR's two lower national series (Xfinity and Camping World Truck Series) are kind of a mess. The TV numbers are still okay, but attendance and sponsorship are a problem.

From a Sport Business Daily article from back in October:

It costs about $6 million to run a top Xfinity Series car per season, a figure that JR Motorsports executive Joe Mattes thinks needs to come down to $4 million to $5 million in order to keep teams better afloat. It costs about $4 million to $5 million to run a top Truck Series entry, a figure that Keselowski says should be closer to $2 million to $2.5 million.

Some observers have called for a re-evaluation of the sport’s split of television money. While teams get 25 percent of the $820 million annually that goes into the sport from Fox Sports and NBC Sports, the two lower-tier series get only a small percentage of the total.

[Purist]

Well, part of the attendance problem is, if not ticket prices, the ramped-up prices at the hotels for race weekends, and that bubble definitely burst with the start of the recession in late 2008.

IndyCar oval races are 250 miles, at the short end, currently. Road courses run 200-225 miles; I wouldn't mind Road America going from 55 to 60 laps even. Their street circuit races, apart from St. Petersburg, run 150-180 miles; I think Toronto should come up to 90 laps, and St. Petersburg down to 100.

I'm not sure how you convince the locals that shortening their race isn't a demotion, and that could definitely be a sticky issue for NASCAR, particularly at those two (really) short tracks.

As for the Chase, I can say that the people around here, even just listening to casual conversation around various places, weren't in favor of it from the time it was announced. It just seemed like a way for them to try and recapture some of that magic from the 1992 season finale. And as the Chase is the root of this stuff, and all those gimmicks subsequently added on to it, well, cut it out and remove the problem.

[Alfisti]

OK, so the race lengths is just me then! Must make more effort to not doze off. Age and being east of the Atlantic (so races late in the day) are my excuses and I'm sticking to 'em!

The aero at All Star looked to be responsible for the 88 losing it to me... or was there a subtle driver error I didn't register?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

If you honestly think the Chase was widely hated from the start, you weren't looking that far past your circle. There's no spin here at all - the Chase is being used as a scapegoat for the numerous smaller things that are what actually bother most people.

Wow, you are absolutely incredibly so far out of touch with reality there it's insane. EVERY major outlet who could trashed the Chase the second it was announced, it lead DIRECTLY to decreased ticket sales the next season, attendance was up but at that point NASCAR was giving away almost 40 percent of the tickets at most tracks. Most everyone I knew in Virginia never once bought a ticket for Bristol or Martinsville, show up and you'd find a way in for free or maybe 10 bucks after 2007. And no, these were not all friends, it was people at a major college and people I knew of through other people including 25 guys who are involved in NASCAR and teams now. The Chase cost NASCAR its major fan base, and dropping Winston well that cost most every diehard watch every race, run a pool and follow it daily in the paper fan I knew in the hills. Those diehard fans I worked with stopped watching Bristol and Martinsville after the Chase, pretty much became a Daytona and we're done fans.

Pretending the Chase is a non influence shows you're way off the pulse. Or so pig headed you can't admit your stance may have been ill informed but I found with 15 min of searching over 200 articles in the archives of major racing publications talking about the Chase being the end of NASCAR written in period. Google is your friend and easy to use

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Wow, you are absolutely incredibly so far out of touch with reality there it's insane. EVERY major outlet who could trashed the Chase the second it was announced, it lead DIRECTLY to decreased ticket sales the next season, attendance was up but at that point NASCAR was giving away almost 40 percent of the tickets at most tracks. Most everyone I knew in Virginia never once bought a ticket for Bristol or Martinsville, show up and you'd find a way in for free or maybe 10 bucks after 2007. And no, these were not all friends, it was people at a major college and people I knew of through other people including 25 guys who are involved in NASCAR and teams now. The Chase cost NASCAR its major fan base, and dropping Winston well that cost most every diehard watch every race, run a pool and follow it daily in the paper fan I knew in the hills. Those diehard fans I worked with stopped watching Bristol and Martinsville after the Chase, pretty much became a Daytona and we're done fans.

Pretending the Chase is a non influence shows you're way off the pulse. Or so pig headed you can't admit your stance may have been ill informed but I found with 15 min of searching over 200 articles in the archives of major racing publications talking about the Chase being the end of NASCAR written in period. Google is your friend and easy to use

Okay, setting aside my suspicion regarding the idea that you directly verified that more than 200 different articles referencing the Chase were being expressly opposed to it rather than being a mix of opposition, hyperbole, and criticizing the notion that it WOULD kill the series(saw more than a few such articles back in the day), there's still a major issue with your assertion here...

News outlets are NOT the same as the fans as a whole - each article you look at expresses the viewpoint of a single person: The writer of the article. So unless every single one of those articles has thousands of people commenting in support of it that you can prove are all unique, they do not tell you ANYTHING.

This is why I generally exclude news publications from consideration when trying to gauge fan attitude. They're not reliable measurements - sure, they're sometimes in line with the actual attitude, but that doesn't mean the news outlets should be widely believed - and IMO one should be ESPECIALLY suspicious if a news report lines up with their own beliefs.

There's also the problem of the "loud minority" when it comes to these matters. The people who don't have widespread support tend to scream the loudest to make it seem like they do in order to get people to follow their ideas. And, as much as I hate to admit this, it works. FAR too often it works, and based on everything I've seen I am of the belief that you've fallen victim to this.



Now yes, it IS true I don't have my finger on the pulse of NASCAR fans the way I do with IndyCar and IMSA fans, but you don't have to have to be that tied in to be able to see the reality of the issue. The facts don't lie, and the fact of the matter is the NASCAR's popularity peaked AFTER the Chase was implemented, and the start of it's decline directly coincides with the financial crisis in 2008, which undoubtedly kicked it off, and subsequent actions by NASCAR only made things get worse than they would have become if they left well enough alone.

Could people have gotten tired of the Chase? It's certainly possible. But given the facts of the matter, it's far more likely that they got sick of the constant changes made to it. The first time I ever saw widespread criticism of the Chase that couldn't be written down to a loud minority was a couple years in when they changed it's eligibility criteria at the last minute to make sure Dale Earnhardt, Jr would get in. Only Junior fans were supportive of THAT move.


I think I should finish this off by making clear that I do NOT think NASCAR absolutely MUST retain the Chase. I merely feel that if they do it should be reverted to it's original form, and that there are far, FAR more important matters to address first - chief among which being fixing the cars.

Case in point - do you know what ELSE coincided with the beginning of the decline? The realization that NASCAR was not going to simply give up on the Car of Tomorrow. Only the most blindly loyal of NASCAR fans liked that monstrosity.

[fieldodreams79]

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Don't worry, I intend to leave it at that. I actually brought up the CoT at the end in an attempt to get discussion about the CAR going, as that's something I'd really like to hear other people's ideas on. Too few people talk about what they want to see changed there....

[fieldodreams79]

Don't worry, FF. I don't worry.

[S griffin]

Don’t forget NASCAR was helped last by the state of Indycar racing being so bad. But now we have had a unified series since 2008 and although it’s taken, it has become popular again and NASCAR’s been left behind as a result