If you were watching the race on TV Saturday night, it looked like Texas Motor Speedway had a really great crowd. In fact, the Speedway reported a crowd of 168,400. That’s nearly one and a half times the capacity of Cowboys Stadium. A heck of crowd – if it stood up to scrutiny.
The grandstands at Texas can hold 122,377. Total infield capacity is 53,000. So if the grandstands were completely full (which they weren’t) that means there would have had to have been 46,023 in the infield (which there wasn’t).
I think we all can agree that 168,400 is a little unbelievable and that Eddie Gossage and to be fair, most tracks, have a knack for fiction when it comes to attendance figures. Still I have to hand it to the track, to SMI, and even to ISC because they have been doing a fantastic job this season distributing crowds throughout the grandstands – whether on purpose or accidental.
Take this weekend – on TV the main and backstretch grandstands looked nearly full from end to end. The reality is, on the frontstretch there were holes here and there, especially down low, at the ends and up high under the suites. And the backstretch was spotty. The same was true at California and to a lesser extent at Martinsville.
A recent innovation for the tracks has been finding unutilized grandstands and covering them with sponsor signage – a new addition at California this year. Charlotte Motor Speedway used to have seating that extended up under the suites in the turn two grandstand – no more.
The truth is, I don’t think any of this is bad (other than the exaggeration of attendance numbers). Most of the tracks on the Cup circuit were ridiculously overbuilt – and tracks throughout have been tearing down grandstands in recent years. Even with smaller than capacity crowds, these tracks have attendance that far exceed their nearest sporting competitor on any given week.
The crowds have been better this season, and these moves lesson the story and issue of attendance. I think anything that gets people more focused on the racing and less focused on the periphery issues is an OK thing.
TheNASCARInsiders.com Follow the Insiders on Twitter or be a fan on Facebook!
I’ve been a big advocate through the years of removing California’s (or should I say Auto Club’s) second date. I’m just not a fan of the track. So I of course thought it was nothing short of a brilliant move last season when ISC took that second date and gave it to Kansas. As we’ve all seen through the years, the racing at California has been, well, sub-par. I was pleasantly surprised though on Sunday to find a race that wasn’t as spread out as usual and didn’t have a run away winner.
Through the first 75 laps of the race, the chatter on twitter was noticeably in favor of a caution, somewhere. And finally on lap 76 debris (somewhere) brought out the first caution of the race. From there, there were three more cautions through the remaining 121 laps. That meant closer fields and tougher racing situations.
Through the shortened 200 lap race (last season it was a 250 laps, though the fall race was the same) we saw 18 lead changes and 10 different leaders. Oh and did you see that finish?
With just nine laps to go, Kevin Harvick, who hasn’t had a spectacular season thus far, managed to make up four spots on four teams that had been running very well all day. Out of the last turn on the last lap it was Harvick who came up victorious – as they say, if you’re only going to lead one lap, that was the lap to lead.
He silenced all the RCR doubters, and showed he’s still here this season. Welcome back Kevin. And who would have thought we would see that at California? I certainly didn’t.
Harvick’s win made him the fifth different winner in five races – that’s a pretty solid start to the season if you ask me. California hasn’t produced solid races of late, but like everything this season, the race left me more than satisfied.
What did you think about the race? Did you like what you saw? Are you sad there’s just one race at California this season? Feel free to use this as your California open post!
An Owner’s Points Update
We’re five races in, so you know that means – our top-35 finally resets for this year. With competitive and full fields, that guaranteed spot is as important as ever.
Updating TC’s post from the other day, here are the five above and below that ever important top-35 mark.
30 Teresa Earnhardt 1 +30 31 Joe Gibbs 20 +26 32 Barney Visser 78 +25 33 Frank Stoddard Jr. 32 +10 34 Robby Gordon 7 +2 35 Bob Germain 13 0 36 Richard Petty 71 -6 37 Tommy Baldwin 36 -9 38 Brad Jenkins 37 -9 39 Bob Jenkins 38 -12 40 Roger Penske 77 -13
In the midst of all the Chase drama this weekend was a story that went largely under the radar. The Arizona Republic reported on Saturday about possible changes coming to Phoenix International Raceway.
The article quoted PIR President Bryan Sperber as saying the track had put together a request for money to repave (the first time since 1993). In addition the article went on to talk about the possibility of the track adding progressive banking – something similar to what ISC did with Homestead several years ago – widening the track and opening up the turns. Any and all of the above changes could very obviously drastically alter the track.
Say what you will about the racing at Phoenix, I think anything other than repaving would be a mistake. The things that are great about Phoenix are all the things that are on that list for changing.
I like that everyone gets bottlenecked on the front stretch. And I like that turns one and two are different from each other and turns three and four are different from turns one and two. I like the weird shape and the flat surface. I like Monument Hill (not that this is going anywhere) and the dogleg. And I like the history of this great track. There’s really not much about Phoenix I don’t like.
I know ISC is considering making changes in the best interest of the track and by extension the sport – but it makes me a little queasy to think about them molesting this track to the point of unrecognizability.
And let’s be honest, ISC doesn’t exactly have the best track record of late for preserving historic race tracks. From the North Carolina Motor Speedway to Darlington Raceway they’ve managed to get rid of some great facilities, or diminish them. I just hope whatever they do decide to do doesn’t do that to this great track.
The end of the article quoted Tony Stewart and his feelings about the track.
They removed the Goodyear pedestrian bridge, and that was pretty historic. And what used to be a really cool, unique corner – the old Turn 2, where there used to be a gap between the end of that wall and where the wall to the dogleg along the backstretch started – that’s all been eliminated. I didn’t want to see those changes. And if more changes are coming, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to see them, either.
I couldn’t agree more.
Say what you want about Bruton Smith, you can’t accuse the guy of not speaking his mind. And you can bet when there are eager reporters around him the gospel according to Bruton is about to be preached.
Though it might have gotten lost in the noise about Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski, Smith took time this past weekend to give his take on the state of the sport, and the changes he would like to see made.
Among his comments, Smith lamented his investment in Motorsports Authentics calling it the “worst decision I have ever made in my business life.” He also said he believes he can get a Kentucky Cup race on the schedule for next season (see stories here, here and here).
Always interesting though were Smith’s suggestions on how to improve the sport. He suggested:
I haven’t been the biggest advocate of moving the end of the year banquet to Las Vegas, but it clearly is a market that embraces the sport. Could they support two races a year? Probably. And why not finish the season in the place where you’re going to hold the banquet?
Smith said the health of the sport will be tied to the venues on NASCAR’s schedule. I think he makes an important point that the sport needs to stage events where the market is most likely to embrace the product. Unfortunately for Smith, NASCAR isn’t too likely to take dates away from the France family controlled ISC.
Another point Smith made was the need to remove the emphasis of points racing. Do you tune in every week to see your favorite driver run conservatively in order to maintain his points position? I’m guessing the answer is no. While I agree with him on that point I think altering the payout system penalizes those underfunded teams who do actually run full races (ex. Front Row Motorsports). I can’t say I have a better suggestion on how to get drivers to be more aggressive on track though.
On the topic of start and parks (though I could care less) I’m warming to the idea of making fields smaller. Maybe we need to go back to having the size of fields fluctuate depending on which track we’re at. It would redistribute the purses and give S+P’s less of an opportunity to participate.
I can’t say I agree with everything Smith said or suggested, but some of it made sense. For all his eccentricities I think he does a good job of understanding the wants and needs of fans. As one of the sport’s biggest stakeholders NASCAR ought to bring Bruton Smith to the table a little more often.
I know it’s a little early to start talking about the potential changes to the 2011 schedule, but why not? With California in our rear-view mirror and Atlanta now right in front of us, this season’s schedule presents us with two potential casualties for next year.
The ongoing saga of Kentucky Speedway looks to finally be coming to a close. After years of litigation and rulings in NASCAR’s favor, the former owners of the race track just had the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit turn down their request to reconsider the case. With that, the United States Supreme Court remains their last option for appeal. The court receives nearly 10,000 petitions to hear cases every year and selects generally fewer than 100 of those cases. That staggering number means this last ditch effort is a long shot.
Even still the group of former owners is fragmented (one side wanting to continue, the other not wanting to continue), so the process could continue. If that happens Kentucky Speedway will likely have to wait one more season, as NASCAR has held to not giving a race to the track so long as they are tied up in the court system.
Should this thing come to a close though, Bruton Smith and the rest of the folks at Speedway Motorsports are going to have a tough decision to make: which track loses its date?
From the get go it’s fair to assume Bristol, Las Vegas, Infineon, Charlotte and Texas probably won’t lost their dates. Smith has said in the past New Hampshire wouldn’t lose a date, but who knows. The other viable and perhaps most likely candidate is Atlanta. There was a lot of talk about this last year and I think it remains on top of the heap.
Not too far away from Kentucky is Kansas Speedway owned by the International Speedway Corporation. The track along with Penn Gaming is planning on building a hotel and casino on-site. Last week they gained approval for the project (and a gaming license) from the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission. Now that the project is moving forward, ISC has to make the same decision SMI does: who loses that second date?
In January ISC’s Chief Operating Officer Roger VanDerSnick told USA Today the financial fortunes of Auto Club Speedway, Phoenix International Raceway and Michigan International Speedway would all be evaluated as they try to decided where Kansas’s second date would come from. In other words, they’re the most vulnerable. Martinsville, Richmond, Talladega and Daytona all also have two dates.
The specter of Martinsville losing it’s second date has been on the minds of everyone since Darlington lost its venerable Southern 500. I suspect though with NASCAR’s attempt to recapture the past, this move would not be their brightest. I picture fan revolt, the likes NASCAR has never seen.
So with that who should lose its date? Phoenix still does pretty well and certainly provides compelling racing. Michigan, though the racing isn’t always the greatest, does a great job packing the stands – that was quite evident last year. That leaves us with California, which has lackluster racing, ratings and attendance.
Despite Gillian Zucker’s best efforts at propagating the great things about her track, it just isn’t resonating. Check out NASCAR.com writer Joe Menzer’s take on California and Zucker’s “optimistic” attendance figures.
We still have time for time for things to change and NASCAR is a ways from creating the 2011 schedule, but changes could very well be upon us. With that said what do you think? Should Kentucky and Kansas get dates? Where should they come from?
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments