| 0 |
Subject: No More Racing at "The Rock"
Posted by: KrazyKoalaBears
- Leader [517553018] Fri, May 14, 2004, 10:56
NASCAR releases tentative 2005 schedule ADDED
Texas Motor Speedway (Nov. 6): The race will be part of 10-race "Chase for the NASCAR Nextel Cup." Texas will retain its spring date. Phoenix Int'l Raceway (Apr. 17): The race will be a night race. Phoenix will retain its fall race, which is the next-to-last race of the season. GONE
North Carolina Speedway (Rockingham): Will not be on the schedule after the 2004 season. Darlington Raceway: Will have one race in the Spring (May 7) MOVED
California Speedway: Will have 2 dates. Will move the first of its races to Feb 27, one week after Daytona 500. Used to be Rockingham's race. California will keep its race on Labor Day weekend. |
| 1 | Wahoo
ID: 354291410
Fri, May 14, 2004, 11:54
|
I was just going to post this.
I can see adding new tracks but giving second dates to tracks is ridiculous. Especially Phoenix. To eliminate the Rock is a crime. Take a date from Dover and Pocono, drop New Hampshire and Lowes, eliminate a Talladega and Daytona race, drop the second Michigan, but leave the tracks with single dates alone!
I’m fine with expansion, just not at the expense of eliminating good racing.
BTW, NASCAR racing returns to Ohio for the first time in 50 years on Sunday! Looking forward to seeing the trucks race close to home at Mansfield Speedway!
|
| 2 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, May 14, 2004, 12:09
|
I think the problem is that The Rock just wasn't getting any support. I may be wrong (I haven't checked to see), but I think The Rock failed to sellout even their single date this year. Given that, I have no problem with NASCAR giving a second date to a track that a.) provides exciting racing and b.) sells out (more ways than one? ;) NASCAR needs to go where the fans are. The fact is that they've never had much of a Western presence, but they're working on that, as they should. There's really no room to add races and it makes no sense to take a second race away from a track that sells out when there are tracks that aren't full with even just one race. It's tough to see The Rock lose their race, but NASCAR needs to expand to the West if they want to survive as they currently are. To expand, races need to be subtracted from the East and The Rock makes perfect sense, history aside.
|
| 3 | Punk42AE
Donor
ID: 36635522
Fri, May 14, 2004, 13:21
|
Yeah thats the problems KKB. The places losing dates aren't getting people in the stands. The places gaining them have the seats filled and lots of other people wanting in. I don't really see a huge problem with it, but it is getting away from the roots. But everything in the world now is about the Bottom Line, not about the past.
|
| 4 | Sludge
ID: 24914721
Fri, May 14, 2004, 14:22
|
With TMS being the closest track to me, I'm glad they're getting a second date. On the other hand, I think it's a shame that it's Rockingham that's going to disappear. In terms of racing quality, The Rock has TMS beat hands down. Although it's not quite as bad as Atlanta, TMS races can be boring to watch on TV.
|
| 5 | Wahoo
ID: 354291410
Fri, May 14, 2004, 17:23
|
I've got to believe that TV pays more per race than putting fans in the seats and I would guess that races like the Rock have better TV ratings than another Phoenix or Texas date. I don't think Pocono sells out either of their races, move the Rock date a month later and I'm sure they would get a better crowd.
Oh well, that’s mass marketing.
|
| 6 | Wahoo
ID: 354291410
Fri, May 14, 2004, 17:53
|
This explains a little better. Rather than outright giving a date to Texass, they made them buy it. By selling the Rock, ISC only gave up one date.
|
| 7 | Punk42AE
Donor
ID: 36635522
Fri, May 14, 2004, 17:53
|
I don't think TV can give each major city's/area's doing a race the 250-500 million is brings in each race. Plus alot of this had to do with the Lawsuit and the War between SMI and whatever the other group is.
|
| 8 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, May 14, 2004, 21:26
|
No matter what took place, it still comes down to fans in the seats. When you're selling out a place every time, you have a fan base that wants NASCAR. No matter how boring the race is, those are fans who are more likely to watch NASCAR on a given weekend than those fans at tracks that don't sellout. In other words, if I have a track that can hold 92,000 fans (CAL) or 150,000 fans (TEX) and I'm selling out those venues each and every time and I have another venue that holds 60,000 (ROC) and can't sellout, then it's obvious that the fan base in the latter track is less than the fan base in the first two. People may wish to argue that point because Rockingham is in "NASCAR Country," but the facts are the facts: CAL and TEX sellout and ROC doesn't. In the end, it's about more than the ticket revenue. It's about going to where the sport is the hottest. It's recognizing and appealing to the larger fan base, which will put butts in the seats, sell merchandise, and have more people tuning in to the other races. If ROC racing was so exciting, why couldn't they sellout a 60,000 seat venue? Maybe it was only exciting on TV. Certainly, that's worth something, but it doesn't build a fan base in the area and that's the most important aspect of all this because in the end, a fan base translates to dollars.
|
| 9 | Sludge
ID: 24914721
Sat, May 15, 2004, 12:26
|
If ROC racing was so exciting, why couldn't they sellout a 60,000 seat venue? Maybe it was only exciting on TV. Certainly, that's worth something, but it doesn't build a fan base in the area and that's the most important aspect of all this because in the end, a fan base translates to dollars.
I never said that it was better than sliced bread, just that it is better racing than TMS.
Rockingham has two things going against it, and they both boil down to one thing: Location, location, location. #1 - It's in the middle of "NASCAR Country". If I'm going to drop a few hundred bucks to go to a race or two, what determines where I drop that dough isn't determined just by the quality of the racing I'm going to see. If I live in the deep South, there's an abundance of venues to choose from. #2 - Rockingham, NC is, to put it bluntly, out in the middle of nowhere. The nearest large city is Charlotte, over 70 miles away.
I'm not saying that the date shouldn't be moved, just that it's a shame that it has to go. It's too bad that they can't transplant Rockingham's track in Texas.
|
| 10 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, May 15, 2004, 18:31
|
I think #2 is one of the biggest reasons. DW was talking about it before last nights Busch race and said something to the effect of, "there's nothing to do around there." In other words, the only thing there is the track. Beyond that, not much. It's pretty hard to accomodate 60,000 fans when all you have going for you is a race track.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|