The reason why this practice is controversial is because all sides have valid points. There is a definitive lean towards younger drivers these days which means they need to get to the point of being "ready" at a younger age. If you're a dad without the knowledge yourself, the rental ride is the only practical way to go. On the other hand if you don't have the resources but are a pretty good shoe, it does sting to see those rides go to funded drivers.

Points that I spend endless days pondering -

1. I question how many of the rental cars would still be running without un-funded drivers so I doubt hardle any are taking rides from anyone else.
2. If Dave Darland's dad had the wherewithal and had funded him into a NASCAR ride, would he be viewed in the same light as he is now?
3. Aren't programs like TSR, KKR & JJ's helping to balance things out by running un-funded young drivers?
4. If tin-tops are the end-all to the ride buyers, I'm wondering if the top-35 rule is essentially going to put in place a glass ceiling that ends up stopping all these young kids from landing somewhere because no-one in corporate america has heard of Kid Racer from USAC but they have heard of Jeremy Mayfield which is why Jeremy continues to get the ride over Kid.
5. If #4 is true, then why not sit back and enjoy the show in the meantime?