Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Spridgeon
Vukie - You're right. I was throwing credit to Staab, but the fact is that it DID happen under Miller's regime.
DWB - I agree with what you say in 4 & 7. They're apparently looking into what to do on both, but especially 4. Remember that the Buckeye Nationals imploded a while back, long before Miller, and it was a tough money-maker with two divisions, yet didn't pay any more than a standard purse. They're trying, and racers are preaching for, races that pay a little more than standard.
As for #1, the racing is great virtually everywhere they go now. There is nothing wrong with trying to go to places that make a positive display of USAC racing and have the ability to build into bigger events in the future. Again, the goal is to have more races that pay better, and I don't think a lot of places have the ability to do that. That's just my point of view, based on the requests of the racers and owners (the full-time, professionals being foremost in that group). If that's looked at as a "bigger and better" mentality, so be it. You have to go places that can support good shows and hopefully have nice facilities to put USAC racing in a good light.
2. Their sanctioning fee is not out of line at all. The biggest reason that USAC has a higher sanction fee which leads to them being bashed for it being too large is mainly because of their outstanding insurance plan. I won't get into that - but you all need to do some homework and find out how people like the McDaniels are helped when guys who get hurt at a lot of local tracks or other sanctions are left high and dry.
3. Belleville, Knoxville, Granite City, Prairie are all co-sanctions. What else can be done? Nobody wants to be the little brother. Calling POWRi a "National" Midget Series is extremely misleading, by the way...
5. That's just wishing for something that is not overly possible. That's a big purse, and a big cloud hanging over any promoter's head. If the Silver Crown Series can basically keep the races they have now, and maybe add a couple dirt races, that would be good. The return to Iowa and the race at Oswego were met with outstanding crowds.
More races at the current purse is not the answer. They need more events, so their drivers and teams can get more in return without the cost of running more races.
The biggest challenges are midgets and pavement. Those are pretty big problems, but they've also been on a downhill slide for a while. It will take some deep thinking and some time. And honestly, you can blame USAC for the Hut Hundred cancellation all you want, but it would have been a big stinker, and that is IF Terre Haute didn't cancel due to low car count. In all actuality, the Hut Hundred has not been right in quite a few years, and it would take a much better purse and a much better rules package to get guys back there. It's gonna be a challenge.
|
1. I have a strong belief that there are many places USAC could go that would put them in a good light and have enough fans that would make it profitable, not just a sucess, but profitable. Morgan County Speedway is a prime example. There are alot of former attendees to Little Springfield there that would make a rush to MCS if USAC came there.
2. The sanctioning fee is high for these economic conditions and in general. I understand the insurance for the drivers is high but there are ways to cut costs in the fee department.
3. To me (IMHO) co sanctioning and take over are two different things. Knoxville Nationals, Gold Crown Nationals, and the Firemen's Nationals were all started by another club before being touted as USAC races. USAC being an equal partner is one thing but to be the prime club is a little far reaching. At times USAC is becoming the NASCAR of midget racing: the 800 pound gorilla in the room just with less stroke. Hey if we are running down series UMARA is not a national midget series either but they call themselves national midgets. Care to take a shot at them?
5. This is very possible to do. It just takes determination and commitment, something USAC has had alot of problems doing in the past few years.
No comment on #6? #6 would add another way of doing co-sanctioning with both POWRI and Badger.