Our experts weigh in on four of the biggest questions in NASCAR:
Turn 1: Lots of chatter about the Sprint Unlimited being less exciting than in the past. Was it? And what, if anything, would you do to revamp it?
Ricky Craven, ESPN NASCAR analyst: I don’t see how anyone can complain about the action, other than the car owners. With that said, from the drivers’ perspective, the race had more meaning when it was a pole-winners-only event. Winning a pole rewarded you by qualifying you for this exclusive event, and that was an important measure to the teams. I believe the race has lost some of the exclusiveness. Perhaps we can take a page from Darlington Raceway and return the race to its origin — a pole-winners-only race called the Busch Clash.
Ryan McGee, ESPN.com: Was it really so much different from all the others or is this just how it is now, complaining to complain? To quote Jay Z, who once had Dale Jr and Danica in one of his videos, NASCAR’s got 99 problems and a Sprint Unlimited ain’t one. At least it ain’t one that is as important as the other 98.
John Oreovicz, ESPN.com: This year’s Unlimited may or may not have been less exciting than those run in the past, but that event has never been a draw for me so I don’t remember much of its history. What would I do to revamp it? Get rid of it! Are 36 points-paying races plus an all-star weekend not enough? Maybe bring back a couple of days of preseason testing at Daytona to help the teams prepare for the 500 and the other restrictor-plate races. They’re bound to tear up a lot less equipment testing than they do in what is ultimately a meaningless exhibition race.
Bob Pockrass, ESPN.com: I thought it was about as exciting as they come, considering it’s a restrictor-plate race with 25 cars. Although only a few drivers led laps, they appeared to have to fight at times to stay up front. How to revamp this race? The only thing that would make this race really unique would be to use the road course. Yeah, I went there.
Marty Smith, ESPN: Busch Clash. 1988.
Turn 2: Is the charter system good or bad for NASCAR? Will less competition for making the field hurt?
Craven: It’s good for business. It will, however, eventually force the hands of the drivers to follow suit. Everyone wants protection, and everyone seeks economies of scale (insurance, health insurance, retirement programs); I worry that a driver alliance could create headwinds for our sport, but the first shot has been fired, and the second won’t be far behind.
McGee: I like it from the angle that there’s an opportunity for the owners to potentially create worth where there was none. And I really like that it’s giving them a legit, unified voice to discuss issues with NASCAR. But I worry that they’re making the Charter Club a little too exclusive. There is real concern at the back end of the garage over what looks to be a big disparity in race purse distribution between charter and non-charter teams. Without sponsorship the purse is all those teams have. I hope that my initial reaction – that it feels like you beat up a kid on the playground and then walked back to get in one more unneeded kick — is wrong. I’m assured that it is. I know there are pockets of the agreement that allow for some money to be set aside for the top non-charter teams who have braved the long haul, but I hope that there is enough there so that someone who can’t afford to buy or lease a charter still has the door cracked open enough to build something from scratch.
Oreovicz: It’s good for the long-term stability of the sport and especially for the participating teams that were granted charters. However, it’s also probably another thing that will make old-school fans — those already having trouble embracing the modern, business-driven NASCAR — continue to lose interest. Seeing the Wood Brothers on the sideline without a charter leaves a bad taste in that regard. The charter system did serve as a nice smokescreen while the field was cut from 43 cars to 40, and in some ways, that actually increased the competition for making the field.
Pockrass: It should be good. No one goes to see qualifying. The bottom teams have struggled so much and there has been so little promise that those teams would ever compete for even top-30 spots in the standings. This has the chance to make the sport stronger. But it can’t get stronger unless the product is good, the television and attendance numbers improve and sponsor value increases. So the work is just getting started.
Smith: I’m still digesting the charter system, so this response is going to ramble quite a bit. Forgive me. It’s a good thing — that, I do believe. Something had to be done to preserve NASCAR’s sustainability, and it took a drastic move to accomplish that. And given NASCAR’s dictatorial history, this is drastic. The sport has money — FOX and NBC invested $9 billion. The key was for that money to filter down to the team level. It wasn’t. That was the onset of the Race Team Alliance, which then led to the charter. This is a paradigm shift, an unprecedented philosophical update that, to me, punctuates a new day in the sport that began with the institution of the driver council. That driver council was a bridge of communication between the garage and sanctioning body that moved some dirt, man. To its credit, NASCAR over the past few years has been far more open to communication, suggestion and innovation from the team level. But the charter is a collaborative NASCAR never before seen. The size of the field doesn’t matter. The quality of the field does. The charter is intriguing because “it’s something to sell.” But what is that? Chatting through the scenarios in the garage last weekend, folks figure there will always be big money guys who want to own race cars. I’m not sure I agree with that. Joe Gibbs and Richard Childress still have to go to corporate America and secure funding. That might be marginally easier now, based on a guaranteed position in every field — no questions asked. They’re also locked into guaranteed money plans. That’s fantastic for them. But I’m still hung up on the free enterprise sponsorship model. What if owners can’t get proper funding? If they can’t, they can’t race. And if they can’t race and they get money, doesn’t the value of their charter diminish? Like Rob Kauffman: He had way more invested in MWR than he got in return for those charters. But I guess that’s the whole point — without the charter, he had nothing but a building to sell and some land to sell. The charter is something of value that they didn’t have before. So ultimately that’s a very good thing for all parties. That probably just made absolutely no sense.
Turn 3: With the addition of a caution clock in the Truck Series, what “off the wall” idea do you want to see implemented in NASCAR?
Craven: I believe the clock in the Truck series is an excellent idea. I appreciate the overtime rule implemented in Sprint Cup, but it feels like a compromise. I will continue campaigning for races to end with a couple of green-flag laps — regardless of how many attempts it takes. It’s not the perfect scenario for drivers, or television, but is the best solution toward satisfying the customer.
McGee: How about a Cup Series doubleheader? A pair of full-field 200-lappers at Bristol. Both count as points races, win both and you get a big bonus.
Oreovicz: They could set the field for restrictor-plate races by a blind draw. Or set a minimum pit stop window like CART used for a couple years to try to eliminate fuel-mileage races. Micromanaging rule changes often produces unintended consequences, and it will be interesting to see whether the caution clock works as NASCAR wants it to, or if it just creates something to ridicule.
Pockrass: Doubleheader weekends at two different tracks. Like run Martinsville on Saturday and Bristol on a Monday night. Run Kansas on a Saturday and Iowa on a Monday night. Run Dover on a Saturday and Richmond on a Monday night. Run Rockingham on a Saturday and Darlington on a Monday night. You get the idea.
Smith: Man, leave it alone. Holy smokes.
Turn 4: Which Sprint Cup driver has the most to prove in 2016? Why?
Craven: Tony Stewart. He is among the greatest to compete in our sport. It would be fitting for him to go out the same as Jeff Gordon — with a race win. It won’t be easy.
McGee: Oh wow, there’s so many. How about the entire roster at Roush Fenway? Trevor Bayne and Ricky Stenhouse Jr. are nearing the expiration date on “he’s still a young guy with potential” and Greg Biffle‘s biological clock is ticking. They can’t have another winless year.
Oreovicz: Kyle Larson. He needs to turn things around after a subpar sophomore season or risk losing momentum as NASCAR’s “next big thing” to the likes of Chase Elliott and Erik Jones. Larson has shown plenty of speed and flashes of solid racecraft, but he needs to put it all together and turn it into results on a more regular basis.
Pockrass: Kasey Kahne. Does he belong among the elite at Hendrick Motorpsorts? Missing the Chase for a second consecutive year would be considered “below expectations.”
Smith: Kasey Kahne. It’s time to show what that talent can do in that equipment.
