Does NASCAR need to be saved? Yes, but not by the fans....

I recently read a blog where someone had suggestions to save NASCAR. Some of those had to deal with the network options, announcers, commercials and scheduling. And, while I applaud the effort, there are .... I wouldn't say flaws, but...there are issues with the suggestions.

While it can be frustrating to see your favorite sport or team not do well, and as their "unofficial" cheerleader you feel compelled to help in some way, that may not be the best thing to do. Emotions run high for all in this sport, so we can become a bit skewed on what is best.

We're not just emotionally invested in this, we're sometimes financially invested. After all, we do purchase the merchandise, go to the races, and suffer humiliation from family and friends for our sport of choice, and/or driver/team of choice.

As a result of this, we want change. So we suggest a Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or whatever social network campaign to write or compel TPTB (The Powers That Be) to make changes based on what we think everyone wants; sometimes based on what we view is wrong; perhaps not necessarily what is wrong.

It isn't that simple. In fact, it is more complicated than one realizes.

Why? Why is changing what started out a simple sport so complicated?

Because what started out so simple, has become so complicated.

You have different entities to keep satisfied so they come back to the track every race, every year....

Those include:

* Sponsors (without them, there is no team and no sport; no commercials, networks can't afford to pay for programming)
* Car owners (without them, there is no team and no sport)
* Drivers (without them, there is no "fan base" to support the sport)
* Fans (without them, there is no "fan base" to support the sport; and no one to purchase products to increase sponsor sales so the sponsor can afford to sponsor the team or the sport)
* Networks (without them, NASCAR races can't be aired; and sponsors have no advertising to draw in customers as print ads are becoming less frequent)

NASCAR has turned corporate, there is no denying it. Why? Why did our homegrown, down home, grass roots sport turn from the core base that got it to where it was?

MONEY. And it might not be the love of it, it's the actual need of it. Without a title sponsor there is no prize incentive for these drivers to go out and risk life and limb. In today's economy, jobs are a scarcity. We have to take what we can get to provide for our families. NASCAR is a huge employer, and has perhaps saved the country from a higher unemployment rate.

But, like us everyday people, they need money to operate.

As we advance into every year and decade, the cost of living increases. So, then the amount of money needed must increase to afford the necessities.

Let's examine WHY NASCAR can't control certain factors that others want changed....

Sponsors...These are the people who pay for the sport itself. They pay for the championship, the advertising, the prizes, teams, equipment. Without them, there is quite literally no sport.

It stands to reason that the sponsors MUST be satisfied. If not, they walk. We've seen it with race teams. Not only do the drivers, car owners and race teams have to satisfy the demands of the sponsor; so too does NASCAR. Whatever the sponsor wants, they get. That is what keeps the sport going. That is the end of the story.

In addition, those sponsors have commercials. Those commercials pay for the network, the more commercials aired, the more money the network gets. If the network doesn't want to air the commercials, the network loses money and can't operate. See also the network note further down...

Car owners...They start the team, usually out of their own pocket. And while they may have enough to function, it won't last forever. They need to appeal to sponsors to invest their money. In return, they agree to promote the sponsor in any way that results in positive revenue for said sponsor.

Without car owners, there is no NASCAR. The drivers usually don't become owners right away. I know it sounds simple or rather insulting, but it is true. The owners bring the equipment to the track and have to make the decisions based on the needs of the company and driver. They are just as invested in this sport as we the fans are; in some ways, more so. Finances aside, their personal reputation is also on the line.

Drivers...It stands to reason that if there are no drivers, there is no NASCAR. There is no one to form the fan base to purchase the merchandise and to purchase from the sponsor. Drivers serve as a "figure" head of the race team, if they themselves aren't the owners. It is the drivers we fans are there to see, not the sponsors or the owners (unless they're like Tony Stewart).

Fans...Without us, the drivers don't have a fan base to market those souvenirs to, nor do the sponsors. Many of us don't stop and think about that when we walk into Lowe's, Home Depot, Office Depot...we're investing in the car owner and the driver. We buy the tickets to see the drivers. So, we're financially invested in this. We want a good value for our hard-earned money. But, perhaps, we're too close to this as well.

Networks...For those of us who can't go to a race, network viewing is essential. NASCAR must agree to the terms of the network, and find a network willing to air it. There are some networks that don't want NASCAR as they don't think it is a popular enough sport to justify the expense, or they don't even consider it a sport. They are interested in money, and very little in the fans. As much as I love a particular network, I doubt they'd want to air NASCAR. 

In that respect, NASCAR has little choice but to "settle" for a network who will take the sport and market it the way they feel will make money. If Fox feels their "Digger Cam" is going to be a great marketing gimmick, then that is the way it will be. NASCAR has two choices: 

1. Accept it and go on.

2. Leave. NASCAR can leave the network, but that can backfire. Not too many networks are willing to take on NASCAR. There are more cable (for pay) networks than major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). So, NASCAR has to be careful to not make too many waves.

There are only 4 major broadcast networks. If they choose to not air a NASCAR race, NASCAR has no control of that factor. They can't  force a network to air programming they don't want to. Not to mention the cost on a cable network is significantly lower than a major channel. Again, the sponsors want to make money as do the major networks. I don't see CBS wanting to ditch their programming for a NASCAR race on a Friday or Saturday night as there are TV programs that conflict with the time the racing starts. Thus the only stations to air the race would be a "cable/satellite" network to avoid programming conflicts.

Not to mention Friday and Saturday nights are when families take a mini vacation or people hit the clubs. So, there won't be much TV viewing either way, and it would not be cost effective for the major networks. Some people are in church on Sundays or have other obligations. 

The networks have the ultimate say in how many or how often the commercials air. Those commercials are how they get paid. The network is not going to say no to money. If they want to insert a commercial every 5 laps, they will. NASCAR can ask them not to, but NASCAR can't control them.

In the same way the networks and sponsors feed off of each other, the networks rely on the announcers to give the "play-by-play". Because the networks have to pay the announcers, they want a good deal for their money. And, it helps to have people from said sport to announce it. 

After all, what does a former football quarterback know about how much wedge to put in or take out of a stock car? Does he even know what the terms "loose" and "tight" are when it comes to how the car is steering? Does he know what pit strategy is? Likely not.

It makes sense to have a former crew chief or driver to announce the race.

I've read many complaints about Kyle Petty, Darrell Waltrip, and Rusty Wallace. I will be honest, I have only watched Darrell's broadcasts, even though I was a Rusty Wallace fan when he was racing. I don't watch the race because I am usually busy with errands, housework or in most cases I want to be there and can't. I am more of an "active" viewer. I need to feel the cars whiz by and be part of the action.

So I can't say for certain how good or bad they are. 

Whether or not the fans like the announcers, for networks, wanting someone who knows the sport inside and out is a good choice. But, how many fans have considered there might not be too many former drivers or crew chiefs who want the gig? And, perhaps maybe others want more money to do it? 

Current drivers can't call the race because they're driving. So, the network has to make a choice and decisions based on availability and costs. That would be a more reasonable assessment of it.

With the technical terms being described as if the viewer is in 2nd grade, here is the problem--NASCAR is trying to attract new viewers. So, anyone new to the sport is not going to understand what pit strategy is, or a track bar adjustment. The announcers must, while trying to keep the viewers interest, explain something as non-technical as possible so the new viewer does not lose attention and turn the TV off. There are constantly new viewers every week. I too hate being told over and over again about something. But there are people who do not have one clue about our sport, or even consider it a sport.

So, we have so far limited what NASCAR is in direct control of....which isn't a lot.

Now NASCAR can control what tracks are raced on and when they're raced.

But, remember, this is about money. This is also about accessibility and feasibility.  I too wondered why Rockingham went defunct on the circuit. However it was explained that the track's attendance in its last few years of operation had declined, and also other markets were calling for NASCAR to visit. Fans in the west and mid-west were asking for NASCAR races in their markets as it seemed confined to the South East market. 

Given that the current schedule for the Sprint cup series has 36 points based events and 3-5 exhibition events (Bud Shootout, Twin Qualifiers & All-Star race) depending on how you count them; that is quite a bit. So, NASCAR must balance the markets along with attendance to satisfy the needs of the sponsors, car owners, drivers, fans and NASCAR themselves. 

If a track does not sell out, then the date is removed from that one and transferred to another venue. 

Getting back to Rockingham. The track once hosted two dates, then as attendance declined and other venues opened...it lost a date. As the attendance further declined, the revenue declined as well. Not to mention the aging track was decaying which affected the racing surface. Much in like what we saw at Martinsville in 2004 when Rusty Wallace won and Jeff Gordon fell in the infamous hole.

In the end, I believe Rockingham was dropped from the schedule due to not only low attendance but the track's physical condition. It would have cost more to repair, refurbish or rebuild than it was worth based on current revenue and attendance. Much in the same way cars are totaled by the insurance company. It might not be the damage itself, but the amount of repairs versus the worth of said car. 

So adding back older tracks whose attendance declined and their condition deteriorated is not a viable solution. Building more tracks like the old ones are going to be more costly, and that revenue has to come from somewhere, the fans and ticket prices normally. To build more tracks, the operators and investors need money. And, as we saw (and some experienced) in Kentucky, a viable transportation solution and infrastructure must be present to ensure that people can get in and out of the venue in a reasonable and safe manner.

Building a racetrack takes years in the planning. Not to mention the local, county and state government must agree to accept the venue in their area. There must also be a market for the venue--attendance and revenue. Each is key in where to place a venue. Then there is the money to construct it. Not as simple as it seems. 

So, we switch dates among the current venues. Great idea, but don't forget about the debacle with Bruton Smith (SMI) and NASCAR (ISC) about who got what races and how many (hence why Kentucky now has a Sprint Cup date). I believe the way it is divided among the venues is about as good as it is going to get. If Bruton Smith loses a date, it will go to another one of his tracks that only has one date; and the same with ISC/NASCAR, so that wouldn't work too well. Neither party wants to trade with each other, and that is their right. After all, they have to make money to cover operational and promotional costs.

If we want more tracks or better tracks built, that means that someone else will lose a date, and perhaps a race all together. That means the people who can only attend certain races because of logistics will have to pay more to travel to another track, and that will affect attendance. If you go for track renovations, that takes money, which comes with increased ticket prices; again that affects attendance.

I can only afford to go to one race per year. I go to Las Vegas Motor Speedway because I live only 25 miles from it. There is no hotel or food costs for me; as I can sleep at home and eat at home. I can place a cooler in my car and make frequent trips out to the parking lot to get a drink or snack.  It saves me money, but the race track loses money as a result.

I have gone there since March 2005 (10 total events including 3 truck series races), and paying off my 2012 renewal as we speak (so far, two more payments to go).

The only other track I went to was Texas Motor Speedway. That was in November 2005, and it was cheaper than heading to Phoenix. The tickets were cheaper, I had better seats (row 1, as opposed to the hill) and the hotel was cheaper. I had saved up survey points for food for myself and my mother. We drove 24 straight hours so we didn't need a hotel for the trip. In essence I saved about $300 in going to Texas as opposed to Phoenix.

But, in the past 5 1/2 years, I have been unable to afford heading out of Nevada for another race. So the California and Phoenix venues are going to miss out my attendance until my financial situation improves. That is nothing NASCAR can help with. To travel out of state I need food, accommodations (hotel), transportation and some souvenir money in addition to race tickets (total cost $1000+ if not more).

In the end...does NASCAR need to be saved? Yes. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. 

But, only from the fans who want too much; expect too much and don't stop and think about the whole picture, rather than focusing on only the parts they deem are "damaged" based on their experiences and arm-chair assessments.

NASCAR doesn't control the sponsors or the networks. They control the car owners, drivers and themselves; to the best of their abilities. What do the fans control? They control their own money, their voices, and their opinions.

NASCAR can not change what they do not control. There is no set solution. Changing for one fan's needs, then discriminates against the other fans' needs. NASCAR will never please 100% of the fans. That is a 100% fact. As each of us have different spiritual, educational, financial and dietary needs; so too do we each have a different NASCAR need. 

While the core fan base is likely still in the South East, going back to defunct venues back there ignores the fan base out West. The defunct tracks will need maintenance and need to have a sell-out performance to justify the operational costs. If NASCAR and the track operators were to consider it, from where do we take the date. And, what would you tell the fans who lost a date/track as a result? They didn't matter? Their needs were not as important or their voice was not as important? 

At one time, there were 5 active racetracks between North Carolina/Virginia alone--Charlotte, Rockingham, North Wilkesboro (NC) and Martinsville & Richmond (VA); so it is easy to see why certain tracks were removed. As there are diverse NASCAR fans, there needs to be diverse tracks and diverse states/venues. We need to reach all the fans not "select" fans.

And yes, I am a NASCAR fan, born and bred. Have been one since I was 6 months old. I was born on Dale Earnhardt's birthday (April 29th). I was born in 1976 (76) and he had 76 wins in his career.

I don't want to see this sport go away. I would like the fans who claim to love this sport smarten up and realize we are in an economic hole, and accept that NASCAR has become a victim of its own success. It wanted to be popular and be legitimized in the corporate world...welcome to corporate America, NASCAR.