2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

[PSUcelticsWON95]

Not sure exactly what that means, but I really hope that NASCAR isn't getting as money-hungry as other pro-sports leagues. I mean, look at the last driver in NSCS points, Tommy Drissi. He ran one race, got 38th, and pocketed $85,850. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jeff Gordon has ownership over Jimmie's car. They're all millionaires. Those who aren't are at least making 100K/year. Hell, all of the full-time drivers have enough money to start their own racing association. Again, I'm not understanding what it's supposed to mean too well. I guess time will tell exactly what this'll do.

[wonderbread]

Not sure exactly what that means, but I really hope that NASCAR isn't getting as money-hungry as other pro-sports leagues. I mean, look at the last driver in NSCS points, Tommy Drissi. He ran one race, got 38th, and pocketed $85,850. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jeff Gordon has ownership over Jimmie's car. They're all millionaires. Those who aren't are at least making 100K/year. Hell, all of the full-time drivers have enough money to start their own racing association. Again, I'm not understanding what it's supposed to mean too well. I guess time will tell exactly what this'll do.

they might make millions of dollars a year but each car costs close to 100K and then there is gas, tires, oil, ect that racks up probably close to 1000 a race, and that's at the minimum, then you have to pay the driver, and the crew, and the crew chief, and the transpo to the track, and research and development, if the drivers decided to start their own teams without support like DEI at first, or Stewart Hass they would be at a clear disadvantage and would struggle to break even.

[PSUcelticsWON95]

Not sure exactly what that means, but I really hope that NASCAR isn't getting as money-hungry as other pro-sports leagues. I mean, look at the last driver in NSCS points, Tommy Drissi. He ran one race, got 38th, and pocketed $85,850. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jeff Gordon has ownership over Jimmie's car. They're all millionaires. Those who aren't are at least making 100K/year. Hell, all of the full-time drivers have enough money to start their own racing association. Again, I'm not understanding what it's supposed to mean too well. I guess time will tell exactly what this'll do.

they might make millions of dollars a year but each car costs close to 100K and then there is gas, tires, oil, ect that racks up probably close to 1000 a race, and that's at the minimum, then you have to pay the driver, and the crew, and the crew chief, and the transpo to the track, and research and development, if the drivers decided to start their own teams without support like DEI at first, or Stewart Hass they would be at a clear disadvantage and would struggle to break even.

Yeah, they have to spend a lot, but there's no doubt that they're living more than comfortably. When/where did news of this union occur?

[Needschat]

Not sure exactly what that means, but I really hope that NASCAR isn't getting as money-hungry as other pro-sports leagues. I mean, look at the last driver in NSCS points, Tommy Drissi. He ran one race, got 38th, and pocketed $85,850. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jeff Gordon has ownership over Jimmie's car. They're all millionaires. Those who aren't are at least making 100K/year. Hell, all of the full-time drivers have enough money to start their own racing association. Again, I'm not understanding what it's supposed to mean too well. I guess time will tell exactly what this'll do.

they might make millions of dollars a year but each car costs close to 100K and then there is gas, tires, oil, ect that racks up probably close to 1000 a race, and that's at the minimum, then you have to pay the driver, and the crew, and the crew chief, and the transpo to the track, and research and development, if the drivers decided to start their own teams without support like DEI at first, or Stewart Hass they would be at a clear disadvantage and would struggle to break even.

DEI doesn't exist, and hasn't since it merged with Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates at the end of 2008.

[Needschat]

From here, the gist of the Race Team Alliance is to control costs: travel, health insurance for the crew members, etc. Another is to control the cost of the new engines which NASCAR has stated that, beginning in 2015, will have a small displacement, adding millions MORE to the teams' expenses, already stretched with the new car from last year AND the new aeropackages for this year.

This isn't a union, rather a collaborative organization of team owners to see what they can do to lower operating costs. There is NO fear of replacement drivers.

[wonderbread]

Not sure exactly what that means, but I really hope that NASCAR isn't getting as money-hungry as other pro-sports leagues. I mean, look at the last driver in NSCS points, Tommy Drissi. He ran one race, got 38th, and pocketed $85,850. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jeff Gordon has ownership over Jimmie's car. They're all millionaires. Those who aren't are at least making 100K/year. Hell, all of the full-time drivers have enough money to start their own racing association. Again, I'm not understanding what it's supposed to mean too well. I guess time will tell exactly what this'll do.

they might make millions of dollars a year but each car costs close to 100K and then there is gas, tires, oil, ect that racks up probably close to 1000 a race, and that's at the minimum, then you have to pay the driver, and the crew, and the crew chief, and the transpo to the track, and research and development, if the drivers decided to start their own teams without support like DEI at first, or Stewart Hass they would be at a clear disadvantage and would struggle to break even.

DEI doesn't exist, and hasn't since it merged with Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates at the end of 2008.

which is why i said "at first". they had lots of help from RCR, the same way Stewart Hass has lots of help from Hendrick and the fact that Stewart was becoming owner of a team that already existed.

[dfwabel]

From here, the gist of the Race Team Alliance is to control costs: travel, health insurance for the crew members, etc. Another is to control the cost of the new engines which NASCAR has stated that, beginning in 2015, will have a small displacement, adding millions MORE to the teams' expenses, already stretched with the new car from last year AND the new aeropackages for this year.

This isn't a union, rather a collaborative organization of team owners to see what they can do to lower operating costs. There is NO fear of replacement drivers.

In 2010, Sprint cup purses were reduced by 10%. In the Nationwide Series, purses were reduced 20% this season alone. Costs are still going up.

Two years ago during SpeedWeeks, the Florida Times-Union ran a story about the weekly cost of a race team with the following graphic.

[PSUcelticsWON95]

From here, the gist of the Race Team Alliance is to control costs: travel, health insurance for the crew members, etc. Another is to control the cost of the new engines which NASCAR has stated that, beginning in 2015, will have a small displacement, adding millions MORE to the teams' expenses, already stretched with the new car from last year AND the new aeropackages for this year.

This isn't a union, rather a collaborative organization of team owners to see what they can do to lower operating costs. There is NO fear of replacement drivers.

Thanks for the clarification! Sounds like a good plan. Just as long as they don't choose to go back to the CoT

[Needschat]

From here, the gist of the Race Team Alliance is to control costs: travel, health insurance for the crew members, etc. Another is to control the cost of the new engines which NASCAR has stated that, beginning in 2015, will have a small displacement, adding millions MORE to the teams' expenses, already stretched with the new car from last year AND the new aeropackages for this year.

This isn't a union, rather a collaborative organization of team owners to see what they can do to lower operating costs. There is NO fear of replacement drivers.

Thanks for the clarification! Sounds like a good plan. Just as long as they don't choose to go back to the CoT

To me, it looks like the big 9 teams banded together to lower the ancillary costs AND to keep NASCAR from mandating a small engine displacement that will costs millions and millions and millions of dollars to implement.

[oddball]

The thing about this so called alliance, is that it will do diddly squat to lower costs. What no one is telling you is that the money they save on crew members staying at a lower cost hotel, will be spent on something else ridiculous, like a larger pit box that blocks the fan's view of the entire backstretch of Talladega. The truth of the matter that people don't want to hear, is that when you "save" money, you just end up spending that money in other places. I give the teams credit for trying and it was NASCAR that went to the teams to ask them to look at stuff such as hotels, etc. So while NASCAR doesn't know much about this, they do. I don't see this much as a power play amongst owners versus NASCAR. Can they use it to have NASCAR slow down on the implementation schedule of the engine rule? Sure. They may also use this to suggest to NASCAR on a better schedule, group races together to cut down on costs. If that's the case, I could see them taking the "saved" money and opening up a SuperTech Shop in St. Louis or so to house cars etc for cross country trips so haulers don't have to go back and forth across country. I realize there are a lot of technicalities and issues with that, but I think it's a new idea that could be explored with the saved money.

[Needschat]

The thing about this so called alliance, is that it will do diddly squat to lower costs. What no one is telling you is that the money they save on crew members staying at a lower cost hotel, will be spent on something else ridiculous, like a larger pit box that blocks the fan's view of the entire backstretch of Talladega. The truth of the matter that people don't want to hear, is that when you "save" money, you just end up spending that money in other places. I give the teams credit for trying and it was NASCAR that went to the teams to ask them to look at stuff such as hotels, etc. So while NASCAR doesn't know much about this, they do. I don't see this much as a power play amongst owners versus NASCAR. Can they use it to have NASCAR slow down on the implementation schedule of the engine rule? Sure. They may also use this to suggest to NASCAR on a better schedule, group races together to cut down on costs. If that's the case, I could see them taking the "saved" money and opening up a SuperTech Shop in St. Louis or so to house cars etc for cross country trips so haulers don't have to go back and forth across country. I realize there are a lot of technicalities and issues with that, but I think it's a new idea that could be explored with the saved money.

You do know that NASCAR stated that the engine displacement for 2015 will be smaller, right? And you know that means millions more spend on development, right?

Before the teams spend on what you say, they'll need to first develop a NEW ENGINE.

[Unocal]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

[See Red]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

I don't know why. Jimmy's run may have something to do with it, people at least loved Earnhardt, so of course they're going to watch even though he is dominant. Most people seem to dislike Jimmy (even though he's very likeable).

Maybe the constant changes to the chase format (or the existence of the chase at all)? I've been annoyed by a few things of late. The rain being one. I know it's beyond control but it makes it very frustrating when you look forward to a race all week and have to deal with postponements or delays. The absurd number of commercials -- although I haven't noticed it as much lately (don't know if it's gotten better or I'm used to it). The cookie cutter tracks, with one of the unique ones (Pocono) making for a terrible race to watch. I watch the races all the way through when I'm not working, but some of the tracks are just boring. Cautions for debris that they never show is another one. The lack of any real good rivalries is another -- sure they may talk crap about eachother after a race, may even confront each other, but it doesn't seem to make it's way back onto the racetrack (obviously safety is a big thing and you don't want to f*** up your own car in the process of 'getting even'). The biggest of those (for me) is probably the tracks, though. They need more unique ones.

[Unocal]

Ratings went higher in years 1-2 of the Chase. 2005 is NASCAR's highest-TV ratings season, so it wasn't an instant turn-off.

[dfwabel]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

1-NASCAR ratings still ebb and flow. Basically every three years they peak (2005, 2008, 2011) but 2014 ain't working out. People get older and lifestyle choices in 2003 are not the same in 2009, specifically within the NASCAR new viewer demo.

2- The digital options to watch are greater and the society is using it. Granted, Sprint is the #3 US mobile carrier, a dedicated NASCAR fan will still use the Sprint apps to watch a race as opposed to sitting and watching on TV.

3-When NASCAR peaked in terms of race attendance in the mid-2000's, then the economy tanked and hurt both ISC and Speedway Motor Corp both overbuilt their tracks.

Attendance for their target market dwindled and may of those who watched on Sundays before, now may have to work on Sundays thus watch via DVR. NBCUNIVERSAL just paid NASCAR $4.4B because they need viewers on NBCSN and the ability to still charge the carriage fee which they have and possibly increase it.

4-As BusinessWeek pointed out in early May: The “marginal NASCAR fan” does not have a reason to care about drivers and Carl Edwards is the guy who moves the needle the most.

5-Races are too long. They need to cut down the number of 500 mile races. 500 mile races can help the track sell hot dogs and sodas, they detract a TV audience. Plus, they've have numerous rain delays in the last three years in their most important races in terms of TV audience.

The sport is too lacking racial/gender diversity and in dire need of attracting younger fans.

6- The 2008 Brickyard 400...the “Parade Race”

[See Red]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

1-NASCAR ratings still ebb and flow. Basically every three years they peak (2005, 2008, 2011) but 2014 ain't working out. People get older and lifestyle choices in 2003 are not the same in 2009, specifically within the NASCAR new viewer demo.

2- The digital options to watch are greater and the society is using it. Granted, Sprint is the #3 US mobile carrier, a dedicated NASCAR fan will still use the Sprint apps to watch a race as opposed to sitting and watching on TV.

3-When NASCAR peaked in terms of race attendance in the mid-2000's, then the economy tanked and hurt both ISC and Speedway Motor Corp who both overbuilt their tracks.

Attendance for their target market dwindled and may of those who watched on Sundays before, now may have to work on Sundays thus watch via DVR. NBCUNIVERSAL just paid NASCAR $4.4B because they need viewers on NBCSN and the ability to still charge the carriage fee which they have and possibly increase it.

4-As BusinessWeek pointed out in early May: The “marginal NASCAR fan” does not have a reason to care about drivers and Carl Edwards is the guy who moves the needle the most.

5-Races are too long. They need to cut down the number of 500 mile races. 500 mile races can help the track sell hot dogs and sodas, they detract a TV audience. Plus, they've have numerous rain delays in the last three years in their most important races in terms of TV audience.

The sport is too lacking racial/gender diversity and in dire need of attracting younger fans.

6- The 2008 Brickyard 400...the “Parade Race”

I just looked up #6 (not a race I watched), according to wikipedia, "Since this race, attendance has dropped from a 257,000+ sell out to an estimated 100,000 at the 2010 race."

Wow. What a disaster. I do remember hearing about it, I think -- I wasn't big into NASCAR at the time.

In regards to the Newsweek article, I can definitely see people not caring about the drivers. I could probably name only two drivers I actually dislike, Kenseth and Keselowski (and my dislike for Kenseth isn't based in anything -- he seems like a very likeable guy). Most of them I'm indifferent about, I have one favorite (Gordon), and a handful of drivers I'll cheer for to win if Gordon doesn't.

Also, an unrelated gripe about NASCAR... why do 99% of the driver shirts have to suck? I can never find a damn Gordon shirt I like. It's like there's a rule that all racing shirts have to be gaudy.

[dfwabel]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

1-NASCAR ratings still ebb and flow. Basically every three years they peak (2005, 2008, 2011) but 2014 ain't working out. People get older and lifestyle choices in 2003 are not the same in 2009, specifically within the NASCAR new viewer demo.

2- The digital options to watch are greater and the society is using it. Granted, Sprint is the #3 US mobile carrier, a dedicated NASCAR fan will still use the Sprint apps to watch a race as opposed to sitting and watching on TV.

3-When NASCAR peaked in terms of race attendance in the mid-2000's, then the economy tanked and hurt both ISC and Speedway Motor Corp who both overbuilt their tracks.

Attendance for their target market dwindled and may of those who watched on Sundays before, now may have to work on Sundays thus watch via DVR. NBCUNIVERSAL just paid NASCAR $4.4B because they need viewers on NBCSN and the ability to still charge the carriage fee which they have and possibly increase it.

4-As BusinessWeek pointed out in early May: The “marginal NASCAR fan” does not have a reason to care about drivers and Carl Edwards is the guy who moves the needle the most.

5-Races are too long. They need to cut down the number of 500 mile races. 500 mile races can help the track sell hot dogs and sodas, they detract a TV audience. Plus, they've have numerous rain delays in the last three years in their most important races in terms of TV audience.

The sport is too lacking racial/gender diversity and in dire need of attracting younger fans.

6- The 2008 Brickyard 400...the “Parade Race”

I just looked up #6 (not a race I watched), according to wikipedia, "Since this race, attendance has dropped from a 257,000+ sell out to an estimated 100,000 at the 2010 race."

Wow. What a disaster. I do remember hearing about it, I think -- I wasn't big into NASCAR at the time.

In regards to the Newsweek article, I can definitely see people not caring about the drivers. I could probably name only two drivers I actually dislike, Kenseth and Keselowski (and my dislike for Kenseth isn't based in anything -- he seems like a very likeable guy). Most of them I'm indifferent about, I have one favorite (Gordon), and a handful of drivers I'll cheer for to win if Gordon doesn't.

Also, an unrelated gripe about NASCAR... why do 99% of the driver shirts have to suck? I can never find a damn Gordon shirt I like. It's like there's a rule that all racing shirts have to be gaudy.

'See Red', I worked off the 'SabresRule7361' comment not your earlier post.

NASCAR decided to take an influx of $$$ from FS1 and NBCSN needed to justify what each network gets monthly for subscription fees. They are repeating what they did the first NBC deal.

Since the last NASCAR TV deal negotiated in 2005, television ratings have fallen 47 percent for Sprint Cup telecasts and admissions revenue for the publicly traded track companies has plummeted 42 percent.

And yet NASCAR just landed a new deal in which the rights fees went up 46 percent, from an average of $560 million a year to $820 million. That’s a boon for the sport, especially for NASCAR and its tracks with even the teams getting a piece.

NASCAR shirts are not great, but F1 and MotoGP clothing is so much better.

[Unocal]

I used to truly love the Brickyard 400.

It's not the same anymore.

I remember when Bill Elliott won there in 2002, when Harvick had en epic burnout after winning in '03, happy that my RYR drivers were able to finish 2-3 behind the deserving winner Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart finally winning in '05.

Really, I'm just wistful of pre-COT NBC/TNT NASCAR. As great as ESPN was in the 1990s, I loved that six-year run of NASCAR.

I miss when Dodge and the Ford Taurus were around.

[PSUcelticsWON95]

What's your take on why NASCAR ratings have declined so precipitously?

Is it the Car of Tomorrow? Jimmie's dominance? (Consider that when Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt combined to win 7 of the 10 Cups in the 90s, the sport got more popular, not less).

I remember when NASCAR races on FOX used to clobber the NBA on ABC:

The Darlington 2003 race (AKA Craven/Busch's legendary finish) drew a 5.9 rating. The opposing NBA game- a Dallas/Sacramento 129-123 OT shootout- drew a 2.9.

1-NASCAR ratings still ebb and flow. Basically every three years they peak (2005, 2008, 2011) but 2014 ain't working out. People get older and lifestyle choices in 2003 are not the same in 2009, specifically within the NASCAR new viewer demo.

2- The digital options to watch are greater and the society is using it. Granted, Sprint is the #3 US mobile carrier, a dedicated NASCAR fan will still use the Sprint apps to watch a race as opposed to sitting and watching on TV.

3-When NASCAR peaked in terms of race attendance in the mid-2000's, then the economy tanked and hurt both ISC and Speedway Motor Corp both overbuilt their tracks.

Attendance for their target market dwindled and may of those who watched on Sundays before, now may have to work on Sundays thus watch via DVR. NBCUNIVERSAL just paid NASCAR $4.4B because they need viewers on NBCSN and the ability to still charge the carriage fee which they have and possibly increase it.

4-As BusinessWeek pointed out in early May: The “marginal NASCAR fan” does not have a reason to care about drivers and Carl Edwards is the guy who moves the needle the most.

5-Races are too long. They need to cut down the number of 500 mile races. 500 mile races can help the track sell hot dogs and sodas, they detract a TV audience. Plus, they've have numerous rain delays in the last three years in their most important races in terms of TV audience.

The sport is too lacking racial/gender diversity and in dire need of attracting younger fans.

6- The 2008 Brickyard 400...the “Parade Race”

Of course you have Danica, but Darrell Wallace Jr is also making great runs. And I think a driver like Chase Elliott could really help out a lot with how good he is at his age. Who knows, maybe some new guys will make rivals with some old guys. You can compare NASCAR to WWE. It was all exciting with great rivalries and emotional wins, whereas now it's kind of too generic. I think a big reason why reviews are down, is because the main watchers in the 90s and early 2000s just don't really have a connection to the drivers anymore.

[rvrdgsfn]

Results from New Hampshire:

1. Keselowski

2. Kyle Busch

3. Larson

4. Kenseth

5. Newman

6. Bowyer

7. Stewart

8. Hamlin

9. Stenhouse Jr.

10. Earnhardt Jr.

Kes just had a dominant performance this race, maybe he won't slice his hand again, and on that note farewell TNT & well, I won't be shedding tears. We take the week off & next up, Indianapolis for the 400.