Oreo/ESPN on Iowa and Bullrings [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Oreo/ESPN on Iowa and Bullrings

Hoop-98

25th June 2010, 04:24

http://espn.go.com/racing/blog/_/name/oreovicz_john/id/5324004/iowa-race-spark-bullring-boom

rh

anthonyvop

25th June 2010, 06:04

Will Iowa race spark bullring boom?

I hope not!

DanicaFan

25th June 2010, 06:14

I couldnt agree more. Ditch more road courses and bring more ovals. :)

garyshell

25th June 2010, 06:19

I couldnt agree more. Ditch more road courses and bring more ovals. :)

Why, because the princess can't handle them?

Gary

Spiderman

25th June 2010, 13:40

I prefere short ovals over intermediate ovals, so i would be happy with it. I believe the driver prefere them also, because they play a bigger part there.

anthonyvop

25th June 2010, 15:10

I know it will make some poster's head explode but the # don't lie. Adding more ovals is not the way to go.

4 ovals races a season is more than enough.

bblocker68

25th June 2010, 18:39

I love any oval track where they have to lift off of the throttle.

SoCalPVguy

25th June 2010, 20:18

I couldn't agree more. Ditch more road courses and bring more ovals. :)

Photo

http://autoracingmemories.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=145&pictureid=905

I could not disagree more regarding this statement than I already do with you in general...

I call your attention to one of the finest books ever written about auto racing: linkie: http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Age-American-Racing-Car/dp/0768000238

The Golden Age of the American Racing Car by Griffith Borgeson

In this book, he describes the short 1/2 to 1-mile wooden board high-banked tracks of Southern California such as Beverly Hills, Culver City etc.. FAILED and I distinctly remember his analysis of why this type of racing ultimately failed...

paraphrasing...http://autoracingmemories.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=145&pictureid=905

The racing was very exciting... but the crowds got bored... Ultimately is was NOTHING BUT SQUIRRELS RUNNING AROUND IN A CAGE...

That's what I thing about 7/8-mile squirrel rings like Ioway (too small even to call a "bull" ring... Boring hamsters in a cage. Count me out !!!

DanicaFan

25th June 2010, 20:29

anthonyvop

25th June 2010, 20:59

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2010, 21:39

I know it will make some poster's head explode but the # don't lie. Adding more ovals is not the way to go.

4 ovals races a season is more than enough.

I keep looking for how Iowa was a failure Tony. Cant see it...the stands were packed, the racing was good, and it was a good TV program. Repeat that about 7 times a season, you cannot tell me that isn't a good thing.

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2010, 21:40

I couldnt agree more. Ditch more road courses and bring more ovals. :)

And If Danica found new speed and won Toronto in a few weeks, you would want all street tracks.

You are a fan, and not objective. OH well, your girl goes to NASCAR, and she can run ovals all she wants...and if she doesn't do well....what tracks will you advocate for then?

garyshell

25th June 2010, 21:52

I dont know how anyone can get bored with the fast speed of side by side racing, especially going 3 wide on an oval. Its much more exciting than seeing a parade of cars driving on a road course playing follow the leader.

You do now.

Passing, when happening all the time, gets boring really quick.

1 pass on a road course is much more exciting than cars droning side-by-side, lap after lap on an oval.

To quote Paul Simon, "one man's ceiling is another man's floor". You are BOTH wrong. For many of us, BOTH forms of racing are exciting. It is this attempt to partition the sport into two separate camps that is a load of cr@p. Good old King George started it with his "vision" and the cr@pwagon crowd took up the other side. Well the war is over, we now thankfully have a series that embraces BOTH types of racing. If the two of you want to see all ovals or all road/street courses, there are other series that will satisfy your tastes.

Gary

anthonyvop

25th June 2010, 22:25

I keep looking for how Iowa was a failure Tony. Cant see it...the stands were packed, the racing was good, and it was a good TV program. Repeat that about 7 times a season, you cannot tell me that isn't a good thing.

I saw:
Lowest turnout in the event's history. Oval racing(Don't call it good as that is totally subjective) and a unimaginative and formulaic TV program.

So I can very easily say that it isn't a good thing.

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

garyshell

25th June 2010, 22:40

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

Hmm, lets see we have the history of CART pre 1996 which ran a mixed series to much success. Then along came King George and his all oval "vision" which begat the Champcar juggernaut to replace many of the ovals with street/road races giving us a mostly non-oval series. And hmmmm, let's see how successful were those two? So whataya got, to support YOUR assertion that a mixed series is NOT needed?

Gary

anthonyvop

25th June 2010, 23:04

Hmm, lets see we have the history of CART pre 1996 which ran a mixed series to much success.

Gary

1996 is ancient history when it comes to entertainment marketing.

In 1996 NASCAR wasn't yet the monolith of racing in the USA it is now.

In 1996 the Indy 500 had double the TV numbers and tickets were still hard to come by.

In 1996 the Internet was just becoming a part of popular culture.

In 1996 "Speedvision" debuted.

garyshell

25th June 2010, 23:07

1996 is ancient history when it comes to entertainment marketing.

In 1996 NASCAR wasn't yet the monolith of racing in the USA it is now.

In 1996 the Indy 500 had double the TV numbers and tickets were still hard to come by.

In 1996 the Internet was just becoming a part of popular culture.

In 1996 "Speedvision" debuted.

None of which supports your assertion that a mixed series is not a better one.

Gary

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2010, 23:33

I saw:
Lowest turnout in the event's history. Oval racing(Don't call it good as that is totally subjective) and a unimaginative and formulaic TV program.

So I can very easily say that it isn't a good thing.

Lowest turnout in the event's history? Really? Did the track lose so many fans they wont bother next year? Hardly. I saw full stands...it is a small track...Using your logic, NASCAR would dump Atlanta entirely and give up on Fontana entirely.

You haven't said one good thing about Indycar racing in any post I can remember, so your opinion is taken with a grain of salt personally....
I hate boring oval races, and love good ones..and I saw a good broadcast with great racing. IF you didn't see that, it is because you chose not to.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

Gee...I guess the last 5 years before the split were just a mirage? My god Tony, you are dense with your private agenda.

This series needs fans of oval racing AND road racing, and they cannot exclude either. They really need more fans or one or the other to clue in to this reality, but this is the legacy left from the idiocy of the split.

You always ask for proof Tony. First off, prove the numbers are down with something other than your opinion ( attendance may be down for all I know but I didn't see much empty grandstand on TV so it couldn't be down much, and the numbers may be down for other reasons besides the popularity of the IRL). Secondly prove to me how CART having tracks of all types in a balanced schedule was a failure. Show it to me....ratings then were as high as NASCAR's or at least in the relative conversation, and events such as the race in Toronto drew 70000 plus on race day, and Indy drew big crowds for Bubble day and the like ( something they haven't since) and Michigan drew well. In short, the series had fans of all the types of tracks. Your assertions are your opinion....and that only.

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2010, 23:35

I dont know how anyone can get bored with the fast speed of side by side racing, especially going 3 wide on an oval. Its much more exciting than seeing a parade of cars driving on a road course playing follow the leader.

Because 3 wide on a oval with room for 5 cars isn't showing skill. Also, on a road course, it takes skill to pass and skill to find speed. Something your girl hasn't always exhibited. When one understands there is more to racing than holding your foot to the floor, then you might begin to understand the actual skill required.

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2010, 23:36

You do now.

Passing, when happening all the time, gets boring really quick.

1 pass on a road course is much more exciting than cars droning side-by-side, lap after lap on an oval.

That was why Iowa worked for both camps. IT wasn't a slam dunk to get by but guys who figured out the setup and found the line could pass...so there was action, but it still required the drivers to find just the right line, time their use of the PTP and adjust the car as they went on.

Lousada

26th June 2010, 00:23

Lowest turnout in the event's history? Really? Did the track lose so many fans they wont bother next year? Hardly. I saw full stands...it is a small track...Using your logic, NASCAR would dump Atlanta entirely and give up on Fontana entirely.

The released attendance number was 34.000. It's the average for Indycar races this season.

Mark in Oshawa

26th June 2010, 00:33

The released attendance number was 34.000. It's the average for Indycar races this season.

That's sad..no two ways about it...but then again, for Iowa, it works and NASCAR maybe draws 5 to 10 thousand more.

Once upon a time, the CART would have averaged 70000 plus....

anthonyvop

26th June 2010, 05:16

None of which supports your assertion that a mixed series is not a better one.

Gary

Well the facts are except for the Indy 500 the ICS road races get better ratings and road racing fans have more discretionary income.

St. Pete and Iowa had about the same amount of fans but which fans are the sponsors lusting after?

anthonyvop

26th June 2010, 05:21

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100620/SPORTS1401/100620010/Iowa-Corn-Indy-250-Attendance-dips-and-mishap-in-pits

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/indycar/2010/iow/indycar-2010-iow-as-0104.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/indycar/2010/iow/indycar-2010-iow-as-0045.jpg

Plenty of empty seats there.

NickFalzone

26th June 2010, 05:46

Tony, not saying this was 100% the case, but on TV they even mentioned that the significant threat of rain that afternoon probably kept quite a few fans from showing up. Now whether that's legit, I do not know. But that was the claim at the time so I take it for what it is.

Lousada

26th June 2010, 11:23

That's sad..no two ways about it...but then again, for Iowa, it works and NASCAR maybe draws 5 to 10 thousand more.

Once upon a time, the CART would have averaged 70000 plus....

Nascar Nationwide drew 55k last year at Iowa. But it must be noted that it was the first NNS race there ever.

Tony, not saying this was 100% the case, but on TV they even mentioned that the significant threat of rain that afternoon probably kept quite a few fans from showing up. Now whether that's legit, I do not know. But that was the claim at the time so I take it for what it is.

The thing is that the main grandstand seats maybe 25k. The rest of the seating is temporarily. So you can gauge interest by the amount of temp grandstands they put up. For Indycar there are less and less stands every year...

px400r

26th June 2010, 13:49

That's sad..no two ways about it...but then again, for Iowa, it works and NASCAR maybe draws 5 to 10 thousand more.

Once upon a time, the CART would have averaged 70000 plus....

That's the sad truth.

But even if the split had not happened and CART still existed today as it did in the 90's, I'm pretty sure it would still be second fiddle to NASCAR. Not as bad as today's reality mind you, but probably much better off.

Mark in Oshawa

26th June 2010, 18:01

Well if there was empty seats there, it isn't indicative by itself that it is a turning away from the IRL. It can also be an indication of the economy, the weather forecast and the local promotors.

Tony' assertion that oval racing doesn't work at all then must make the assertion that ergo, making the IRL an all Road/street course series save maybe Indy would be a roaring success. Well we saw how well that worked for the CCWS didn't we?

OW racing is on life support, and it has to offer up something to all race fans who are either fans of this form of racing, or are becoming disenchanted with NASCAR. They cannot afford to pick and choose one format (ovals or RC) over the other. They need both...

NickFalzone

26th June 2010, 19:25

That's the sad truth.

But even if the split had not happened and CART still existed today as it did in the 90's, I'm pretty sure it would still be second fiddle to NASCAR. Not as bad as today's reality mind you, but probably much better off.

That's a very important point that gets lost in the Tony George/IRL/Champ Car/CART fiasco. I firmly believe that NASCAR was on the upswing in 1996 and regardless of what AOW did from 1996-2010, it would have dropped off in prominence as compared to NASCAR. Would it be better off today had the split not occurred? Yeah, probably. But i think we'd be looking at a series still on ABC, but some races on ESPN1/2, and getting maybe 1.2's to 1.3's and 5.0's for the 500. In other words, profitable #'s but nowhere near competition for NASCAR. People like to put the blame everywhere but on actual content, and I think the reality is that the American public's racing interest shifted heavily towards stock car racing starting in the mid-late 90s and no matter what CART did, it would not have been able to hold onto its place as a solid competitor to NASCAR.

NaBUru38

28th June 2010, 21:30

the significant threat of rain that afternoon probably kept quite a few fans from showing up

Actually there was a warning of severe thunderstorms.

garyshell

28th June 2010, 23:17

Actually there was a warning of severe thunderstorms.

And folks in the midwest take those sorts of warnings VERY carefully. The rest of the country may think that to be insignificant, but if you have EVER seen a tornado in the flesh, trust me, you would heed the warning too. Severe thunderstorms can turn to tornado watches and then warnings in a very short window of time measured in minutes.

Gary

call_me_andrew

29th June 2010, 03:51

I was hoping Memphis would replace Nashville, but Memphis seems to have gone under.

I'd love to see an IndyCar race at Martinsville.

Mark in Oshawa

29th June 2010, 15:58

I was hoping Memphis would replace Nashville, but Memphis seems to have gone under.

I'd love to see an IndyCar race at Martinsville.

Memphis didn't seem to go under, Dover Motorsports closed it and is selling it off because it was a money pit...

Mark in Oshawa

29th June 2010, 15:59

That's a very important point that gets lost in the Tony George/IRL/Champ Car/CART fiasco. I firmly believe that NASCAR was on the upswing in 1996 and regardless of what AOW did from 1996-2010, it would have dropped off in prominence as compared to NASCAR. Would it be better off today had the split not occurred? Yeah, probably. But i think we'd be looking at a series still on ABC, but some races on ESPN1/2, and getting maybe 1.2's to 1.3's and 5.0's for the 500. In other words, profitable #'s but nowhere near competition for NASCAR. People like to put the blame everywhere but on actual content, and I think the reality is that the American public's racing interest shifted heavily towards stock car racing starting in the mid-late 90s and no matter what CART did, it would not have been able to hold onto its place as a solid competitor to NASCAR.

I am going to just say slitting your wrists when you might be bleeding away some support is just stupidity, but alas, that was OW racing in the late 90's.

Handing the market over to NASCAR, maybe for good.

BT46B

30th June 2010, 06:12

chuck34

30th June 2010, 13:41

garyshell

30th June 2010, 17:08

So you want something different than F1, but you hate short ovals, and are sort of so-so on large ovals???????

Dirt tracks maybe???

Figure-8!!!

Gary

chuck34

30th June 2010, 17:32

Figure-8!!!

Gary

Figure 8 trailer races are about the most exciting and hilarious things going. :-)

Mark in Oshawa

30th June 2010, 18:51

I hate bullrings. Always have. Learned to appreciate large ovals when CART came to LB in place of F1 and any tv coverage became a mix of the two. Still think road races and large ovals are a decent combo of racing skills. If Indycars are to have a chance they have to offer something else than F1 does. But it has to be GOOD. Quite a conundrum.

Hating Bullrings while liking the large ovals proves you are not watching closely. Large ovals are more like NASCAR...just foot to the floor stuff. Watching an Indycar on a tight short oval like New Hampshire, the Milwaukee Mile or Iowa is where a good driver can make time and do things. Diving in amongst the endless traffic to get through, taking different lines as the track changes, having to outbrake people to get the preferred line or to take a position....you have elements of road racing while having the oval track conditions of having to deal with traffic constantly and adjusting as the track makes radical changes.

Short ovals are the toughest for strategists and in many ways the mental conditioning of the drivers....