THE “F” WORD IN RACING
Last week Mike and I hosted, through our Department of Management, a panel discussion on “The State of NASCAR”. On the panel were reporters David Caraviello, Gene Laverty, Dustin Long, and Nate Ryan — names I’m sure you’ll recognize if you read newspapers and the .com’s that deal with NASCAR.
One of the topics that arose dealt with the “F” word—“franchising” of NASCAR. Opinions differed on whether NASCAR would ever consider franchising, mostly because of some loss of control if it did.
Dustin, however, opined that there are many forms of franchising and in fact, the “top 35 rule” is virtually a “franchising” of sorts. It gives drivers in the top 35 in points a virtual “franchise” by assuring them a place in the race. A question was raised about whether the “top 35 rule” was good for the sport, given that if my driver isn’t in the top 35, there’s a good chance he won’t make the race and I’ll be disappointed.
David quickly pointed out that this rule has nothing to do with racing but rather everything to do with guaranteeing sponsors they will have their car in the race. I’ve written previously about my dislike of this rule but I now have a different perspective on it.
I still don’t like it.
Would you prefer your driver to “get in” the race based on qualifying time or based on who the sponsor is? Granted, the drivers still have to earn their “franchise” but those who don’t have a franchise are at a disadvantage if they can’t get in the race — even if their qualifying times might be better than someone in the top 35 — in order to earn points toward the “top 35 franchises."
Just thinking out loud.
Jon
Comments
A good replacement idea for the top 35 rule would be to give longtime sponsors a certain number of exemptions each year, the way they do it in golf. So if a driver wrecks in qualifying, the sponsor can use an exemption to get him in. You could allow up to 10 exemptions per race and fill the rest of the field on speed. You could even give sponsors who have been around a long time more exemptions than newcomers.
Posted by: Doug | September 10, 2007 7:21 PM
Actually, I think qualifying should be through heat races just like at Sat. night tracks, with starting positions handicapped -- top cars to the rear. This would sell a ton of tickets on Sat. It would be an immediate hit. I mean, don't you love the 125's @ Daytona? I'd also have no problem with a limited number of guaranteed spots at the back for any Top 20 cars who fail to get in by racing.
Posted by: mert7878 | September 18, 2007 11:54 AM
Actually, I think qualifying should be through heat races just like at Sat. night tracks, with starting positions handicapped -- top cars to the rear. This would sell a ton of tickets on Sat. It would be an immediate hit. I mean, don't you love the 125's @ Daytona? I'd also have no problem with a limited number of guaranteed spots at the back for any Top 20 cars who fail to get in by racing.
Posted by: mert7878 | September 18, 2007 2:03 PM
That was an interesting read about Franchising.
Posted by: Franchise Guide | November 9, 2007 11:25 AM