Originally Posted by Jonr:
OK I will play.
1. Purse. You can only pay what the fan base will support. Contrary to popular belief, SC cars are a tough series to promote. No one is making a fortune on these cars. You can not pay money you do not have.
When there is an ever changing driver lineup and few races scheduled its hard for fans and car owners to buy into it.
Originally Posted by :
2. Team structure. Unless you plan on going to an extreme on spec parts, you will not be able to control the spending of teams. Everyone who races is a competitor. Telling them not to compete is not the answer. BTW This is not a problem unique to SC. $40,000 ASCS motors and $20,000 modified engines are common.
Never mentioned spec parts at all. I did mention getting rid of factory backed engines though. Incase you haven't noticed, that same design severely hurt NASCAR in the 70's and in the last 10-15 years as well (certain teams getting special parts), Indycar also suffered this with the widely publicized Mercedes Engines that Penske got to the Chevy engines Panther got before Chevy left, to the current engines that are not as scrutinized as they are supposed to be. If a team was responsible for building it's own engines, you don't think that the cost would go down? The only "spec" parts would be limited to cubic inches.
Originally Posted by :
3. Sponsors. Easier said than done. Marketing budgets are very tight and SC cars are a tough sell. If I were in charge of a marketing budget, There are many other options I would consider before SC cars. The SC cars have a small schedule, race in small population area, race across the entire country, and have a small fan base. Not really a recipe for success.
Again, 9 races and lack of consistent driver lineup don't do any good. The recipe has not been a success due to all ingredients not working together. Fans getting the new generation interested, costs pushing out car owners, ever changing rules that twerk instead of tweak, and (as pointed out in another post) people don't trust USAC to be the sanctioning organization that is needed to make this series and these cars/races a success. Maybe the biggest problem with the recipe is the chef that puts it together isn't the chef they once were. Could that be the problem?
Originally Posted by :
4. Names. The problem isn't drivers. It is quality rides. The fact that the USAC driver champion can not get a ride this year shows the issue is severe. However, more people are parking these cars than building new ones. Once again showing that the series is sick.
So the owners are at fault for this part of the problem? When you have 5 dirt races, it's not easy to break the cost down for the dirt car owners. The pavement car owners have an even more difficult time. What wrong with doubling up on dates at the tracks they have now? I can't count how many times people have said they want a second date at the ISF.
Originally Posted by :
5. Fanbase. Nothing wrong with your idea. However, as I have said numerous times, in a niche market like dirt track racing, SC is at the bottom. Given a chance between Woo Sprints, USAC sprints, USAC/POWRi midgets, Lucas Oil late models, USMTS modifiers, or SC, the vast majority of people are not going to pick SC as their first pick to watch.
Who is responsible for letting it sink to "the bottom" (as you called it)? Everyone is responsible. The series has to have something worth marketing to fans, fans have to have something to brag about to new fans, the promoter has to have something to promote, owners have to have something to attract sponsors, sponsors have to have people to market too.
Originally Posted by :
The problem may not be the sanction, the cars, or the fans, but rather the natural death of a series.
It's only going to die if people sit back and let it die. The choice is everyone's to make.
Posted via Mobile Device[/QUOTE]