More Purse Money 16 (14%) I heard this one often, especially in terms of pay in the middle of the field
New line up procedures 5 (4%) This never came up in casual conversations. Interesting.
Change the rules (motor/wing/tire, etc) 28 (24%) But to what rule? I've also heard that there's a concern about being ASCS compliant / competitive more often than anything. My take - if they insist on ASCS rules because anything less would make them uncompetitive, make ASCS show participation mandatory...hmmm?
Fewer Shows 7 (6%) I think this is related to the last.
Track Conditions 25 (22%) This is the one I've heard most in conversation.
More point fund money 6 (5%) I think this is very important to some teams. But, I don't think this is the deal-breaker or the savior of the class.
Nothing, it's just the economy and it will come back 26 (23%) read below
In the end, I think the economy's impact is very understated and is overlooked. Mainly, because unlike all the other options - there's nothing you can do to change this. Sometimes I feel that all the thrashing about over money and rules is just so we can feel good, trying to get some sense of control over all of this when the real problem is something we don't have much control over.
-Jason
4 comments:
Okay, here's my thoughts on the "problems" at Eagle Raceway:
Roger raised this question at the 2 sprint car meetings that he held earlier, wanting the teams' input on how to improve car counts in the sprint division. Everything that got changed at the time was done by a vote of the owners and drivers present.
One of the things was going to an ASCS style draw every evening and putting the funds from the draw into the points fund.
Also, the weekly prize fund is being increased significantly, with better pay going to the mid-level and lower finishers specifically. It was agreed that the top prizes don't need to be increased so much as those lower on the ladder. HOWEVER, this increase is predicated on there being 25 sprinters racing weekly; if not, the purse reverts to last year's level.
As for the line-up procedure, I covered that above with the ASCS draw.
Change the rules? Well, at the sprint car meeting this last Wednesday we went over ALL of the suggestions that teams had and pretty much discarded each of them except for a select few. Those will be presented to Roger who will have the ultimate decision. Personally, I wish they would have gone with the C.O.S. adapter, just for a try. I imagine non-winged style racing with the safety factor of the wing. I know I'm chronologically challenged and still remember VERY fondly the days of the non-wingers, but it made (and makes) the racing better in my opinion. I also realize that it would have made teams learn new/different set-ups, but it kept everyone in the same boat. Also, it would have taken the factor of "cubic dollars" out of the equation and put a lot more responsibility on the drivers' shoulders.
Fewer shows: Hmmm....didn't we try this a couple of years ago by offering non-winged once a month? Seems that THAT was a huge flop to me.
Track conditions: Another thing that we talked about at the meeting. A couple of suggestions were talked about and will be put before Roger also. The problem is, you have to deal with Mother Nature. Anyone who says that this track or that track ALWAYS has a perfect track is lying or delusional. Could it be better? Possibly, but unless someone wants to pony up the bucks to hire someone to dedicate their time to prepping it (and it HAS to be someone with expertise) and is willing to take responsibility for the results, I'd say Roger is doing a pretty fair job.
More point fund money: That is being done as I stated earlier by using the money from the weekly draw. Also, three individuals so far have stated their intent to donate a total of $2500 to the points fund. Now, whether or not all 3 of them actually follow through remains to be seen. I have confidence in 2 of them, but the third....well, let's just say that I'll believe it when I see it.
Nothing: I agree with you Chris, in that it's just the ebb and flow of the world. How many times have we seen car counts in the sprints drop off, only to come back (admittedly smaller than before usually) a few years later? Sadly, the cost of running as sprint and even hoping to be competitive is pricing that form of racing out of most people's reach. Heck, it has to take around $600-700 weekly just to put a car on the track for even the mid-pack cars; and it's not going to get any cheaper.
Chris? ;-)
A couple of bad draws and the bitching will begin. In nearly every discussion about the lineups I've witnesses/been part of, it never comes out in the wash - it's the worst night that is the norm when the discussion comes up.
The non-winged experiment flopped because the show sucked (and it essentially ended another racer's career). I guess it took a couple of years, but there's my honest take. Nobody really got a break.
The problem is, that like the real world, there's no perpetual motion machine - the friction of increasing costs will keep the class further gravitating toward the well-heeled in its current form, just because of basic overhead costs. The only real change in that will be if the class is totally rebuilt from the ground up or if other technologies are allowed in like the crate 410 project.
Sorry for sounding short - I was typing my reply on an iPod.
S'okay Jason. I was hurrying to get all of that out during my morning break and ended up calling you Chris (who I was speaking to prior to typing).
We'll call it even.
Post a Comment
The rules:
1. No ad hominem attacks - AKA: don't "diss" anyone personally.
2. Keep it on topic.
3. I'm open to any well-thought comment just play nice.
4. PG-rated please.
5. By posting, you agree to indemnify me, the blog owner and hold harmless for any liability caused by your comments. (I'm covering myself here).