Thursday, Feb. 28, 2002 | 10:22 a.m.
Ron Kantowski's insider notes column appears Tuesday and his Page One column appears Thursday. He can be reached at [email protected] or (702) 259-4088.
Save for Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s pinstripe fire suit and paint job that commemorated the baseball All-Star Game last July, NASCAR and the National Pastime wouldn't appear to have much in common. Which probably explains why stock car racing has become the biggest thing since sliced bread, and baseball is more like toast these days.
But there is one recent theme linked to baseball that NASCAR might want to consider in the aftermath of 9-11.
Contraction.
That's not contraction as in Michael Waltrip "ain't" got a chance this week. I'm talking contraction as in eliminating teams. Or in NASCAR's case, cars.
Given the money tree that has taken root like a sturdy oak at its Daytona Beach headquarters, it's hard to imagine/believe NASCAR having the kind of financial problems that are threatening to put the Twins and Expos out of business.
But in that the physical damage at Daytona two weeks ago was confined to the cars and not the vital organs of their occupants, the buzzword up and down pit lane no longer is "safety" but "sponsorship."
NBC and Fox left a cash cow in NASCAR czar Bill France's pasture, and papal-like crowds continue to pack the grandstands every weekend. So somebody's getting rich in NASCAR. But it isn't the race teams.
A couple of cars already have been parked, and other small teams say they also may have to pull behind the wall for a lengthy stretch, unless sponsorship money materializes. Given the current recession, they should consider replacing their crew chiefs with Siegfried and Roy, because it may take some serious magic to find a $15 million tradeout (the going rate for a major Winston Cup sponsorship) in these penny-pinching times.
In that they frown on sequins in the garage area (much less guys named "Siegfried"), S&R can't remedy the sponsorship situation. That's why NASCAR should consider contraction. It would solve more problems than an aerosol can of WD-40.
I mean, where except in NASCAR's ever-changing rulebook does it say there has to be 43 cars/teams? Name another major racing series (outside of endurance racing, which caters to hobbyists and other "weekend warrior" types) where they start 43 cars. Formula One has had only 22 cars for several years; CART and Indy Racing (with the exception of the Indy 500, which traditionally is open to the 33 fastest qualifiers), only start two dozen. In recent years, the quality of "the show" in CART and IRL has often surpassed that in Winston Cup, at least at the tracks they have in common.
Moreover, name another pro championship open to 43 teams. Major League Baseball, the NFL, NBA and NHL all feature roughly 30 franchises. Limit NASCAR to 30 teams, and the sponsorship problem goes away.
Trim the field, and you also do away with lapped cars getting in the way. Then the not-ready-for-prime-time drivers can hone their skills in the Busch Series, instead of setting moving screens on Jeff Gordon.
Last year, 19 cars found their way to victory lane, but that was an anomaly. Usually, no more than 10 or 11 win during the long 36-race Winston Cup season. So is it really necessary to fill out the grids with 30 non-competitive cars, rather than 20?
Contraction. Ain't it a gas.
Well, no, at least not yet. But maybe it should be.
archive
