Any talk of Bruton Smith and the swapping of race dates, naturally, gets New England race fans worried.Not so fast, kiddos -- New Hampshire Motor Speedway remains out of this week's conversation. While Smith was talking about swapping a couple of NASCAR Cup Series weekends on the schedule involving a facility he owns, he wasn't talking about taking one of NHMS's races and moving out to his Las Vegas track.
Given that the Cuppers are in Vegas this weekend, it seemed as good a time as any for Smith to float date changes. He did -- though he's proposing swapping his October race at Atlanta with the Labor Day weekend race at California Speedway.
In a story by David Poole of the Charlotte Observer, Smith said he firmly believes Vegas has earned the right to a 2nd Cup race each year. He also said, and it should come as music to New Englanders' ears, that he's somewhat loathe to the idea of doing so at New Hampshire's expense.
"Maybe they will feel sorry for us some day," Smith said in Poole's story. "You realize that NASCAR has never, ever, never given me a date. They’ve given a lot of other people dates. ...It’s just an oversight. I am sure they meant to."
California's attendance has been embarrassing for a track that took an instutition off the slate -- the Southern 500 -- and the SoCal crowd hasn't exactly gobbled up NASCAR the way officials thought it would. That's great news for New Hampshire in the long run -- even though Speedway Motorsports Inc. (Smith's company) doesn't own California specifically, any track like NHMS that routinely sells out 2 races a year remains a boon for NASCAR in general.
12 comments:
New Hampshire is in a racing demographic and Fontana is not. That's why NHIS sells out and Fontana never has.
As far as trusting Bruton Smith goes, I still don't. He screwed up perfectly acceptable tracks everywhere he's had ownership and remains the primary reason North Wilkesboro got killed.
BTW, I noticed Vegas didn't sell out this time.
I'm still not sure how he's "screwed up" the "acceptable" tracks...
Bristol should ring a bell -- from dumpy little regional short track to bursting racing mecca, and, of course, the hottest ticket on the Cup schedule. Texas was never "perfectly acceptable," and Atlanta routinely provides competitive racing.
I understand what you're saying about trust -- let's be honest, when it comes to billionaires and politicians, we all know that hearing isn't believing -- but I'm not willing to go with you on him having screwed up everything in his wake.
TB
Nope, me neither.
When it comes right down to it Bob Bahre took North Wilkesboro remaining Cup date, not Smith.
I think you can count on NHMS being improved & invested in down the road.
I wonder how many more super speedways are going to be built (and fail) around the Los Angeles area before someone gets the hint that type of track just won't fly there. Build a 1/2 mile dirt track and they would be golden.
what i don't understand is why they don'y build more tracks like bristol.last i knew there was a waiting list to get tickets there
bingo #12
tbarrett, here's how Bruton screwed up acceptable racetracks -
He rebuilt Atlanta from a pure oval to a quad-oval; it increased speeds by over 12 MPH and led to more crashes; there was a five or six-race span where the racing was quite good but the surface deteriorated to become a tire-eater, and nose-to-nose racing has largely disappeared.
He kept trying to grind down Charlotte's bumps, failed, then ground down the whole track and it failed spectacularly in 2005 before he did what any other promoter would have done at the beginning - repaved the track.
He took out Sears Point's inside corkscrew corners (a good passing area) and turned them into a parking lot - literally - to put in an oval-influenced short chute that took three or four rebuilds before it was done right.
He banked up Vegas and didn't make it better, just faster, with tire trouble to go with it.
Texas was a disaster from the beginning and even today it's not a good racetrack.
Bruton has never done anything right as far as the racing goes and for all his vaunted promotional acumen he stopped selling out his tracks years ago (to where Charlotte and Texas now sport big sponsor signage blocking off substantial portions of backstretch seating) and his promotional ideas have been embarassing. If he does anything but leave NHIS alone, he'll just screw it up more.
To Anonymous #4 - why they don't build more Bristol-type tracks is simple. Bristol is the worst track the sport goes to - no room to race, excessive physical strain on cars and drivers, and little going for it beyond crashes.
Finally, to Anonymous #3, Fontana isn't failing because it's a superspeedway, it's failing because it's not a racing demographic. A dirt track is even worse than Bristol and won't do anything for this level of the sport. Gillian Zucker's idea to make it a restrictor plate track is about the only thing that can make it better.
monkeesfan.... IMO Bristol and Martinsville are the only two tracks worth going out of my way to see....these two races I tape and watch later if I'm not around to see them on the tube... the other ones including Daytona, I could care less about....
NASCAR should have more true short track events and less cookie cutter events IMO....
How about fours shows at Bristol?
(I might even buy a ticket to a Bristol race)...and do away with Fontana entirely?
tenbomber, what are you talking about? Short tracks are useless at the Winston Cup level - they don't have good racing.
Bristol is the worst track in the sport, a concrete skating rink without good racing.
Why the hue and cry against "cookie cutter" tracks? Granted, superspeedways need to become restrictor plate tracks to have good racing anymore, but regardless of that, "cookie cutter" tracks have more room to race than short tracks.
One other thing tenbomber - you have it backward - it's the short tracks that need to be dropped and replaced with more superspeedways. Superspeedways are what made the sport, not short tracks - no one came to Winston Cup wanting to race short tracks; they came to win on the superspeedways.
Depends what you call good racing monkeesfan?
IMO superspeedway racing is anything but super to watch...
I wouldn't put up with the huge crowds, pay the big ticket prices, and endure all the hassle of traffic jams and the long, long walks to watch that stuff...
I prefer short tracks with racers that nobody outside of the NE or in NASCAR has ever heard of...They are the real racers as far as I'm concernered...
Turn the NASCAR stars lose from there day jobs driving those taxicabs and most times they are hard pressed to compete with the local stars in SLM's or LMS cars featured at America's bullrings... but when those few cuppers who could be called real racers do show up, these are the guys and this competition with the locals is what I want to see! JMO
But each to his own I guess?....
tenbomber, good racing is passing up front, nose to nose combat up front. Short tracks at the Winston Cup level have nothing close to that - it is superspeedways that have it. Of the 50 most competitive races in Winston Cup history, only one short track - Bristol in 1991 due to a bizarre pit-staggering and double-file restart procedure abandoned after one race - made the list.
Local short tracks are good - I've been going to Stafford and Thompson for twelve years now - but it is superspeedways that are the soul of the sport.
short tracks is where its at. if not for short tracks nascar would not be were it is today. if you call that racing that is.ha ha
bingo
Anonymous #11 - how many short tracks ever broke the 40-lead-change barrier? And when did short tracks make the sport bigger?
Post a Comment