Wow! I just looked at the race lineup on NASCAR’s website and was
shocked… must be a mistake I sez to myself… I went to Jayski and sure
enuf… WOW!!
Did NASCAR decide to give the Toy’s a break and let ‘em all start first or
what? Six Toy’s in the top ten? They musta ate their Wheaties before
qualifying.
In fact, looking at the lineup, it is curious that the first Chase driver
(Stewart) is starting 10th. Do y’all the think the Chase drivers and the
other shoes (Kahne, Newman, Biffle, et al) may be hanging back for a reason?
Sumpin’ just doesn’t make sense, there are too many good drivers in the back
of the pack for this to be a coincidence. Has anyone spotted any black
helicopters flying over ‘Dega?
Mike
In article <13gfppn28r0a…@corp.supernews.com>, "Mike Simmons" <mike…@yhti.net> wrote:
>Wow! I just looked at the race lineup on NASCAR’s website and was
>shocked…
>Sumpin’ just doesn’t make sense, there are too many good drivers in the back
>of the pack for this to be a coincidence. Has anyone spotted any black
>helicopters flying over ‘Dega?
>Mike
It’s probably because the cars are impounded.
The guys racing want to start the race out with their
race setup.
The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
maybe.
Dan
****************************************
Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them,
you’ll be a mile away… and have their shoes…
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
"Chuck Steak" <chuck_st…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <13gfppn28r0a…@corp.supernews.com>, "Mike Simmons"
> <mike…@yhti.net> wrote:
>>Wow! I just looked at the race lineup on NASCAR’s website and was
>>shocked…
>>Sumpin’ just doesn’t make sense, there are too many good drivers in the back
>>of the pack for this to be a coincidence. Has anyone spotted any black
>>helicopters flying over ‘Dega?
>>Mike
> It’s probably because the cars are impounded.
> The guys racing want to start the race out with their
> race setup.
> The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
> with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
> regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
> maybe.
> Dan
Sounds right, Dan. Just wonder if any of the ‘unusuals’ up front will give up the
front starting spots and go ahead with making the kinds of changes needed for
‘race trim’.
At least replace the thin/light lubes with sumpin’ that’ll run race distance.
–
Tom in Bristol
—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—-
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
—-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in
news:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07:
> The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
> with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
> regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
> maybe.
For sure. Altho the "race trim" is perhaps not what one would
normally think, because NASCAR rules have eliminated all the
suspension and body tricks that at other races would be the
difference between a qualifying setup and race trim.
As Larry Mac explained during qualifying, what the "go or go
home" guys are doing is running extremely light motor oil,
extremely light gear oil, and extremely light bearing grease;
and also running the engines as hot as practical (hot oil
being thinner than cooler oil). That cuts the drag down
enough to give them a slight advantage over the other cars.
It also cuts their MTBF down to about 300 miles, so we should
not be surprised if none of those cars is running at the
finish
John
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
"Chuck Steak" <chuck_st…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <13gfppn28r0a…@corp.supernews.com>, "Mike Simmons"
> <mike…@yhti.net> wrote:
>>Wow! I just looked at the race lineup on NASCAR’s website and was
>>shocked…
>>Sumpin’ just doesn’t make sense, there are too many good drivers in the
>>back
>>of the pack for this to be a coincidence. Has anyone spotted any black
>>helicopters flying over ‘Dega?
>>Mike
> It’s probably because the cars are impounded.
> The guys racing want to start the race out with their
> race setup.
> The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
> with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
> regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
> maybe.
> Dan
Good point!! I hadn’t considered that.
Mike
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> ****************************************
> Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
> Then, when you do criticize them,
> you’ll be a mile away… and have their shoes…
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
On Oct 6, 8:11 pm, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote innews:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07:
> > The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
> > with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
> > regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
> > maybe.
> For sure. Altho the "race trim" is perhaps not what one would
> normally think, because NASCAR rules have eliminated all the
> suspension and body tricks that at other races would be the
> difference between a qualifying setup and race trim.
> As Larry Mac explained during qualifying, what the "go or go
> home" guys are doing is running extremely light motor oil,
> extremely light gear oil, and extremely light bearing grease;
> and also running the engines as hot as practical (hot oil
> being thinner than cooler oil). That cuts the drag down
> enough to give them a slight advantage over the other cars.
> It also cuts their MTBF down to about 300 miles, so we should
> not be surprised if none of those cars is running at the
> finish
> John
Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to change
for next year. I agree. These "unusual" suspects running "Kamikaze
set ups" may actually pose a safety concern when the green drops.
Michael Waltrip said that he did not compromise his race performance
for his qualifying setup, but I think the top ten starters are going
to be run over quickly. Hopefully, they do not cause the "big one" in
the first few laps because they can’t keep race pace.
Hopefully, NASCAR does something to improve this top 35 nonsense. My
suggestion is to "lock in" the top 20 in owners points, and have
everybody else run a heat race for the remaining 23 starting spots.
just my 2 cents worth
John
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
john5862 <john5…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1191725207.613956.237290@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to change
> for next year. I agree.
Yeah, I tend to agree too. The T35 rule came in when there were 37
teams running every week, and maybe a dozen part time teams, only
6 or 8 of which would show up at any given race.
Now we have 45 every week teams, so the situation is very different.
You can’t gaurantee that all the regular teams will make the race
(which is what the T35 is susposed to do) when there’s more regular
teams than there are starting spots.
> These "unusual" suspects running "Kamikaze
> set ups" may actually pose a safety concern when the green drops.
> Michael Waltrip said that he did not compromise his race performance
> for his qualifying setup, but I think the top ten starters are going
> to be run over quickly. Hopefully, they do not cause the "big one" in
> the first few laps because they can’t keep race pace.
I doubt this will occur. There’s no reason the guys up front can’t
run as fast as anyone else, so the only real risk in the first few
laps is that a couple of them don’t have too much experience
(Villneuve obviously, but also Reutimann being a rookie, and Andretti
is probably a bit rusty).
What we’ll have to watch for is blown engines or other mechanical
problems with those guys after the mid point of the race. Hopefully
we won’t see someone’s engine let go all of a sudden in the middle
of a big pack, because that could be a major mess.
> Hopefully, NASCAR does something to improve this top 35 nonsense. My
> suggestion is to "lock in" the top 20 in owners points, and have
> everybody else run a heat race for the remaining 23 starting spots.
I’d be happy enough if they went back to fastest 41 and 2 provisionals,
which worked fine for years (actually, I’d like to see them either
do 40 + 2 or 42 + 2, having just one car on the last row looks silly).
John
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99C2682725402pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> john5862 <john5…@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1191725207.613956.237290@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>> Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to change
>> for next year. I agree.
> Yeah, I tend to agree too. The T35 rule came in when there were 37
> teams running every week, and maybe a dozen part time teams, only
> 6 or 8 of which would show up at any given race.
> Now we have 45 every week teams, so the situation is very different.
> You can’t gaurantee that all the regular teams will make the race
> (which is what the T35 is susposed to do) when there’s more regular
> teams than there are starting spots.
I think you have that a little wring John. The top 35 rule came into play
while we were still watching teams get sent home every week. There were
some odd-ball weeks where barely a field showed up to qualify, but that was
not the norm for any real length of time.
> What we’ll have to watch for is blown engines or other mechanical
> problems with those guys after the mid point of the race. Hopefully
> we won’t see someone’s engine let go all of a sudden in the middle
> of a big pack, because that could be a major mess.
I’m guessing we’re going to see the engines letting go just past half way.
–
-Mike-
mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM…@alltel.net> wrote in
news:661e7$47090c28$62107a09$10166@ALLTEL.NET:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99C2682725402pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> john5862 <john5…@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1191725207.613956.237290@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>> Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to
>>> change for next year. I agree.
>> Yeah, I tend to agree too. The T35 rule came in when there were 37
>> teams running every week, and maybe a dozen part time teams, only
>> 6 or 8 of which would show up at any given race.
>> Now we have 45 every week teams, so the situation is very different.
>> You can’t gaurantee that all the regular teams will make the race
>> (which is what the T35 is susposed to do) when there’s more regular
>> teams than there are starting spots.
> I think you have that a little wring John. The top 35 rule came into
> play while we were still watching teams get sent home every week.
> There were some odd-ball weeks where barely a field showed up to
> qualify, but that was not the norm for any real length of time.
I beleive you’re misunderstanding my meaning. The T35 rule came
in in 2005. At that time we had ~37 teams running every race,
and a bunch of folk running "some" of the races. The end result
was a more than a full field attempting every race, but not the
same guys each time.
Let’s take the 2005 Phoenix race as typical: 46 entered,
including these part-time teams: 32 Bobby Hamilton, 0 Mike Bliss,
77 Travis Kvapil, 09 Johnny Sauter, 92 Stanton Barrett, 00 Carl
Long, 66 Hermie Sadler, 02 Brandon Ash, 34 Steve Portenga.
That’s 9 part-timers, take that from 46 entrants and you get 37
full-time teams.
You might argue if a couple of those were intending to be part
or full time teams (the 32 & 77, perhaps), but either way you
end up with less than a full fields’ worth of full-time teams,
which is different from the situation now.
John
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
2-3 provisionals per race, 2-3 per team/year…
It just isn’t right to get some guys into such a deep hole,
that when you qualify in the top 20, you still go home…
just not right.
Dan
****************************************
Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them,
you’ll be a mile away… and have their shoes…
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
Hi All,
On Sat, Oct 6 2007 2:49 pm -0500, john5862 <john5…@gmail.com> said:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>On Oct 6, 8:11 pm, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote innews:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07:
>> > The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
>> > with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
>> > regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
>> > maybe.
>> For sure. Altho the "race trim" is perhaps not what one would
>> normally think, because NASCAR rules have eliminated all the
>> suspension and body tricks that at other races would be the
>> difference between a qualifying setup and race trim.
>> As Larry Mac explained during qualifying, what the "go or go
>> home" guys are doing is running extremely light motor oil,
>> extremely light gear oil, and extremely light bearing grease;
>> and also running the engines as hot as practical (hot oil
>> being thinner than cooler oil). That cuts the drag down
>> enough to give them a slight advantage over the other cars.
>> It also cuts their MTBF down to about 300 miles, so we should
>> not be surprised if none of those cars is running at the
>> finish
>> John
>Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to change
>for next year. I agree. These "unusual" suspects running "Kamikaze
>set ups" may actually pose a safety concern when the green drops.
>Michael Waltrip said that he did not compromise his race performance
>for his qualifying setup, but I think the top ten starters are going
>to be run over quickly. Hopefully, they do not cause the "big one" in
>the first few laps because they can’t keep race pace.
>Hopefully, NASCAR does something to improve this top 35 nonsense. My
>suggestion is to "lock in" the top 20 in owners points, and have
>everybody else run a heat race for the remaining 23 starting spots.
>just my 2 cents worth
>John
I agree with you that something should be done about the top 35 locking in. Not
sure I agree it should be 20 though. Why not limit it to the top 12 from the
previous year for say the first 10 (or to keep things in sync, the first 12
races of the year). Once we pass that point, it is a free for all. Top in
points shouldn’t mean anything for qualifying. I believe that would give the
single car and otherwise underfunded teams a better shot at qualifying for the
races which would make for a more dynamic sport.
Just my thoughts…
Dale
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
On Oct 9, 6:13 am, Dale <d…@bear.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Hi All,
> On Sat, Oct 6 2007 2:49 pm -0500, john5862 <john5…@gmail.com> said:
> >On Oct 6, 8:11 pm, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote innews:a_SNi.411$pl2.381@trndny07:
> >> > The guys in the front, the ‘unusual’ guys, had nothing to lose
> >> > with a kamakazi setup… they needed to get into the race,
> >> > regardless of how their cars will handle in race trim…
> >> > maybe.
> >> For sure. Altho the "race trim" is perhaps not what one would
> >> normally think, because NASCAR rules have eliminated all the
> >> suspension and body tricks that at other races would be the
> >> difference between a qualifying setup and race trim.
> >> As Larry Mac explained during qualifying, what the "go or go
> >> home" guys are doing is running extremely light motor oil,
> >> extremely light gear oil, and extremely light bearing grease;
> >> and also running the engines as hot as practical (hot oil
> >> being thinner than cooler oil). That cuts the drag down
> >> enough to give them a slight advantage over the other cars.
> >> It also cuts their MTBF down to about 300 miles, so we should
> >> not be surprised if none of those cars is running at the
> >> finish
> >> John
> >Larry Mac was also saying that this "Top 35" lock in has got to change
> >for next year. I agree. These "unusual" suspects running "Kamikaze
> >set ups" may actually pose a safety concern when the green drops.
> >Michael Waltrip said that he did not compromise his race performance
> >for his qualifying setup, but I think the top ten starters are going
> >to be run over quickly. Hopefully, they do not cause the "big one" in
> >the first few laps because they can’t keep race pace.
> >Hopefully, NASCAR does something to improve this top 35 nonsense. My
> >suggestion is to "lock in" the top 20 in owners points, and have
> >everybody else run a heat race for the remaining 23 starting spots.
> >just my 2 cents worth
> >John
> I agree with you that something should be done about the top 35 locking in. Not
> sure I agree it should be 20 though. Why not limit it to the top 12 from the
> previous year for say the first 10 (or to keep things in sync, the first 12
> races of the year). Once we pass that point, it is a free for all. Top in
> points shouldn’t mean anything for qualifying. I believe that would give the
> single car and otherwise underfunded teams a better shot at qualifying for the
> races which would make for a more dynamic sport.
> Just my thoughts…
> Dale- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
whatever….
N.
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:35 am
"Nancy2" <nancy-doo…@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:1191948189.972672.304080@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com…
> Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
> driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
> whatever….
I hate it when this comes up. Sponsors don’t dictate rules. If their teams
aren’t qualifying, there will be talks between the sponsors and the teams.
The fact of the matter though is that the big sponsors sponsor teams that
qualify in every week. It’s not a sponsor issue.
–
-Mike-
mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM…@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:2e4f2$470bc164$62107a09$565@ALLTEL.NET…
<snip>
> I hate it when this comes up. Sponsors don’t dictate rules. If their teams
> aren’t qualifying, there will be talks between the sponsors and the teams.
Yer right that sponsors don’t ‘dictate’ rules, but ’tis also true that NASCAR,
which *does* make the rules, also knows who butters the bread of big-time stockcar
racing. The ‘butter’ in large part goes on the teams’ bread, but without those
‘buttered’ teams, NASCAR would have little reason for their rules.
> The fact of the matter though is that the big sponsors sponsor teams that
> qualify in every week. It’s not a sponsor issue.
Well, egg and chicken thing here…the teams that qualify in every week are more
attractive to ‘big’ sponsors, and thereby get more ‘butter’…the better-buttered
teams are likely to continue to qualify in every week…the circle rolls on.
> —
> -Mike-
–
Tom in Bristol…having covered eggs, chicken and butter thoroughly…those out of
the circle become ‘toast’.
—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—-
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
—-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
On Oct 9, 1:59 pm, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM…@alltel.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo…@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:1191948189.972672.304080@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com…
> > Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
> > driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
> > whatever….
> I hate it when this comes up. Sponsors don’t dictate rules. If their teams
> aren’t qualifying, there will be talks between the sponsors and the teams.
> The fact of the matter though is that the big sponsors sponsor teams that
> qualify in every week. It’s not a sponsor issue.
> —
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
Isn’t it a sponsor issue if, say, Junior fails to qualify for, say, 3
races in a row (for whatever reason) and then isn’t driving the Bud
billboard around on the track, and then the sponsor says, "I give up,
I’m going with another team," so the non-Q team loses their sponsor
money? I don’t see how it isn’t a sponsor issue, to some degree….
N.
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Nancy2 <nancy-doo…@uiowa.edu> wrote in
news:1191948189.972672.304080@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
> driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
> whatever….
I’m not sure that’s a valid complaint. NAPA & UPS don’t seem to be
overly bothered by missing a bunch of races. I think any of the
big guys could stand missing a race, maybe even 2, in the season
without _too_ much distress.
John
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Nancy2 wrote:
> Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
> driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
> whatever….
And NAPA, UPS, Dominos, Valvoline, Quaker State, Red Bull, Catepillar
are companies that pay big sponsor dollars to stay off of TeeVee?
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
"Nancy2" <nancy-doo…@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:1191958338.703280.309470@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 9, 1:59 pm, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM…@alltel.net> wrote:
>> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo…@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1191948189.972672.304080@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com…
>> > Y’all are forgetting big sponsor dollars. They won’t stand for their
>> > driver not being on TeeVee. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Dupont, Texaco,
>> > whatever….
>> I hate it when this comes up. Sponsors don’t dictate rules. If their
>> teams
>> aren’t qualifying, there will be talks between the sponsors and the
>> teams.
>> The fact of the matter though is that the big sponsors sponsor teams that
>> qualify in every week. It’s not a sponsor issue.
>> —
>> -Mike-
>> mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
> Isn’t it a sponsor issue if, say, Junior fails to qualify for, say, 3
> races in a row (for whatever reason) and then isn’t driving the Bud
> billboard around on the track, and then the sponsor says, "I give up,
> I’m going with another team," so the non-Q team loses their sponsor
> money? I don’t see how it isn’t a sponsor issue, to some degree….
Well, that would be as I stated, correct? An issue between the team and the
sponsor, not between NASCAR and the sponsor. For a more relevant example
see Michael Waltrip.
–
-Mike-
mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Don’t forget, a lot of sponsorship deals are such
that if you do not make a race, you do not get the moolah..
(pro rated, or agreed upon fixed amount).
So the sponsor isn’t out as much as you think..
If that is the deal the 55 has, I figure he owes THEM money…..
(kidding)
Dan
****************************************
Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them,
you’ll be a mile away… and have their shoes…
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:02:09 CST, chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in <UbaPi.6202$9r2.540@trndny04>:
>Don’t forget, a lot of sponsorship deals are such
>that if you do not make a race, you do not get the moolah..
>(pro rated, or agreed upon fixed amount).
>So the sponsor isn’t out as much as you think..
>If that is the deal the 55 has, I figure he owes THEM money…..
>(kidding)
MW Racing may be doing a lot of deficit spending–no kidding
at all. I doubt that they never budgeted for the kind of
problems they’ve faced this year.
NASCAR has to keep a balance between competing interests
(pun intended; you may laugh now):
1. The racing has to be real racing. NASCAR is one of the
oldest forms of "reality TV." If you script the outcome
of the races, the audience will diminish. (Don’t tell
me about World Wrestling. I don’t understand why that
is still on the air!) Finishes MUST be unpredictable.
As they say on the commercials, "Every lap counts."
2. Sponsors have to feel that their investment is
worthwhile. Businesses are risk takers, but only
within limits. Money makes the cars go ’round.
Sponsorship money matters to every team and to
NASCAR as a whole. The more predictable it is that
your team will make the show, the more money the
contract is worth.
I got to go to Watkins Glen once courtesy of Square D.
The #55 car was driven by Bobby Hamilton, Sr. It
was a thrill to listen to him talk to the folks in the
Square D hospitality tent and to look at his show car.
I can’t imagine what a disappointment it would have
been for the folks at Square D if he hadn’t made the
show. The arrangements for the tent, the food, and
the entertainment have to be made in advance. The
people making the arrangements and paying for them
in advance have got to have a reasonable expectation
that the investment will pay off.
I don’t know where Bobby finished that day. That
memory has faded. The images of him taking questions
from fans have not.
Marty
—
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
In article mole…@canisius.edu wrote:
>2. Sponsors have to feel that their investment is
>worthwhile. Businesses are risk takers, but only
>within limits. Money makes the cars go ’round.
>Sponsorship money matters to every team and to
>NASCAR as a whole. The more predictable it is that
>your team will make the show, the more money the
>contract is worth.
There are a lot of misconceptions about sponsorship
motivation…
this is an interesting article, that I saved from a few years ago..
http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/business/07/07/sponsor_nascar/index.html
Dan
****************************************
Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them,
you’ll be a mile away… and have their shoes…
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
"Chuck Steak" <chuck_st…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6XePi.4127$ai2.1412@trndny05…
> There are a lot of misconceptions about sponsorship
> motivation…
> this is an interesting article, that I saved from a few years ago..
> http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/business/07/07/sponsor_nascar/index.html
To throw a twist into this whole thing… I wonder how much the new
demographic of the NASCAR fan has affected this characteristic of loyalty.
As NASCAR continues to woo new audiences and new regions of the country, it
strikes me that they march further from that fan base that could be counted
on for loyalty. My personal prediction is that sooner rather than later,
marketeers will discover (or decide) that the loyalty chip has become more
hype, based on what used to be, than it is reality.
–
-Mike-
mmarlowREM…@alltel.net
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:25:35 CST, chuck_st…@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in <6XePi.4127$ai2.1412@trndny05>:
>In article mole…@canisius.edu wrote:
>>2. Sponsors have to feel that their investment is
>>worthwhile. Businesses are risk takers, but only
>>within limits. Money makes the cars go ’round.
>>Sponsorship money matters to every team and to
>>NASCAR as a whole. The more predictable it is that
>>your team will make the show, the more money the
>>contract is worth.
>There are a lot of misconceptions about sponsorship
>motivation…
>this is an interesting article, that I saved from a few years ago..
>http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/business/07/07/sponsor_nascar/index.html
Good article.
It concludes:
"So the next time you wonder why a corporation writes a big check to paste
its name on the side of an 800-horsepower billboard, remember this: the
corporations write the checks to get their products in front of an
energized, intensely loyal and committed fan base, then work within that
fan base to build stronger business trends and increase market share.
"It’s really that simple."
I think the analysis is consistent with the view I took.
I agree that it goes beyond making the show.
Marty
—
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:13gsab4najm40f4@news.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Good article.
> It concludes:
> "So the next time you wonder why a corporation writes a big check to paste
> its name on the side of an 800-horsepower billboard, remember this: the
> corporations write the checks to get their products in front of an
> energized, intensely loyal and committed fan base, then work within that
> fan base to build stronger business trends and increase market share.
> "It’s really that simple."
> I think the analysis is consistent with the view I took.
> I agree that it goes beyond making the show.
> Marty
I would argue that the fan base is not as "energized, intensely loyal and
committed" as it was in the past. Look at the demographics from say, ten
years ago, to what it is today. Historically, the fan base has indeed
embodied all of the adjectives (adverbs, whatever!!) and more. Sometime in
the last five years, the suits in Daytona decided to broaden the
demographic. So where do they go? A younger, hip audience. In doing so, I
would venture to say that some of the old guard fan base is slowly eroding.
I know I don’t watch as much as I did. Why? Well, the races aren’t as
exciting as they once were. And the television production is less than
stellar. I haven’t listened to MRN this year so I don’t know what’s
happening on the radio side. In the past, I have always thought the MRN
productions were top-notch.
Will the old guard fan base stick around? Don’t know. I do know that the
younger, 18-25 demographic is VERY fickle. Yes, they spend a large portion
of their disposable income. So it’s a profitable demographic. The problem
is their attention span is something approaching zero.
—
Gotta Go…FAST!
Bill
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Why not re-institute the second round qualifying for anyone out of the top
25
Comment by admin — July 30, 2010 @ 1:36 am