Comments on: Are Dynasties Always A Bad Thing?

By: Madtad1

Madtad1 — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:24:39 +0000

Perhaps the Indy League could be a little proactive here by helping the smaller, less well-funded teams afford to do more testing. Testing seems to make all the differnce for TCG and Penske as they can afford it. Perhaps set up testing days for those teamswhere fans can go watch for a small fee with all money going to the teams. It could be made attractive to fans by having a ticket holder win a free two seater ride or tickets to an upcoming race?

YMMV

By: Bent Wickerbill

Bent Wickerbill — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:22:31 +0000

George,
Attractng the casual fan, via well known dynasty team and driver name recognition is a fine theory, however, if the established fan base begins to errode at the dynasty’s expense, what has been gained. I am part of the established fan base, I am the guy who watches every week, the guy who travels to 3 or 4 races per year including the IMS…. I am losing interest, and I am fairly certain I am not the only one…. I realize that many are hanging their hat on the new car, but as far as I am concerned, this will continue to be a spec series, and will pretty much amount to who polishes the BB the best in the coming years. I suppose the first year or possibly two may be somewhat interesting as the aero packages are refined and developed for the various road, street and oval courses. But I have a feeling that soon after the newness wears off that we will settle back in to much of the SOS…. Once you take the opportunity of innovation out of the equation and relegate teams to BB polishing (which by the way costs a great deal of money), you perhaps eliminate two thirds of the field from any serious competition.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:33:45 +0000

Hell, I think throwing Ragan in with Benson is a bit much. Yes, Benson was a bust for Roush, but he was one point out of the top ten driving for Bahari’ Racing and finished in the top fifteen in points driving for Tyler Jet Motorsports (you know, the team that Darrell Waltrip took an infinite number of past champion’s provisionals a mere two years prior, and fellow Busch champion David Green scored zero top tens the previous year). Benson had better points finishes driving shit than Ragan did for Roush; why Benson failed at Roush I’ll never know. And surely Benson’s Busch/truck/ASA titles mean something… Lots of Cup drivers didn’t even have any kind of championship (ahem, Elliott Sadler…) I would have mentioned Chad Little or Kevin Lepage instead. Dallenbach I 100% agree. Useless on ovals.

Jeff Burton has been kind of mediocre lately and seems to have lucked in to almost all his wins at Childress. He’s been in a borderline coma since the 2000 season… I’m oddly not as outraged about that comparison as I am the Benson comparison, even though Burton has objectively had a considerably better career, simply because I think Burton is one of the most overrated drivers out there (even though I’ve employed him in Andy’s game back-to-back years…)

By: The Speedgeek

The Speedgeek — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:10:52 +0000

Yeah, like I said, “maybe” one win. Ragan’s still winless, and has been a crazy disappointment in Cup (truly Benson- or Dallenbach-esque, as far as Roush drivers go). Burton gets thrown into that sentence because he’s as yet winless this season, hence, to me, he’s the clear #3 at Childress. And, yes, Jeff just died a little inside.

By: Steve K

Steve K — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:25:34 +0000

And it looks like the Cat in the Hat is trying to replace Ragen as Trevor Bayne will make his Cup debut in Texas. Ragen gas been a waste in the 6.

By: Steve K

Steve K — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:17:57 +0000

David Ragen win a race? Top 15s are rare enough. Winning has never happened on the Cup level. Jeff Burton just died a little being mentioned in the same sentence as him. Ouch.

By: The Speedgeek

The Speedgeek — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:06:18 +0000

Sean’s right. The proportion of wins by powerhouse teams is about the same in Cup vs. IndyCar. Now, there are more drivers that drive for those powerhouse Cup teams, because most have 3-4 cars, but most of the #2, #3 and #4 drivers for those teams (your David Ragans, Jeff Burtons, Joey Loganos and the like) are good for maybe one win per year.

I’m fully in agreement with Cavin and Kevin on their take on the “red cars” possibly being able to attract more casual fans than somebody like Mike Conway or Mario Moraes winning races. The same five guys winning all the races isn’t driving away casual fans because, well, if they’re casual (i.e. tuning in for their first or second IndyCar race), they don’t know that those cars win all the races, due to the fact that they’re brand new to the sport. On the other hand, if somebody tunes in, likes the colors of the Target cars, decides to root for Dario, he wins, then that new fan tunes in again to find Dario running up front, then there’s a good chance that they might tune in again and again. This is the exact same attitude that I myself had when I tuned into F1 for the first time in 1991 and became a fan of Ayrton Senna.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the same five guys winning all the races, but it’s not me that the Series is trying to attract (um, I’m already here). The big problem, of course, is getting those casual fans to tune in for the first time, period (this is what we’re having problems with being on Versus). Repeat watchers should be less of a problem.

By: The Lapper

The Lapper — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:24:25 +0000

I think dynasties should be admired, however, I would enjoy seeing Newman/Haas, KVRT and Panther get in the mix as well as Sarah Fisher. Speaking of Dynasties, Newman/Haas has enjoyed one.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:24:49 +0000

Don’t blame Jimmie for NASCAR’s decline. NASCAR’s decline occurred because of all the gimmicks they added (the chase, the top 35 rule, California replacing the Southern 500, green-white-checkered, shootout-style restarts, etc…, etc…) NASCAR was not in decline when Dale Earnhardt won 6 out of 9 titles in 1986-1994, nor when Jeff Gordon won three out of four from 1995-1998 (and should have won all four of those titles since 1996 should have been his with a REAL points system).

At the moment, IndyCar has two powerhouses (and would still have three if Andretti Autosport hadn’t screwed it up by hiring Marco and Danica when there were much better drivers available). I’d say NASCAR has three (Hendrick, Gibbs, and Childress; Roush/Penske/Stewart-Haas/Earnhardt-Ganassi are competitive but aren’t QUITE powerhouses, and indeed most seasons Roush is, but sure as hell not this year). F1 has three (Red Bull, McLaren, and Ferrari). So probably more or less the same when you consider the sizes of the fields…

By: dylanpt24

dylanpt24 — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:55:02 +0000

I think the fall in NASCAR ratings while JJ’s won four titles suggest that this doesn’t work in the US with racing. Plus, in stick and ball, all teams (normally) manage to win a game or two, even if they’re awful, so there’s at least something to look forward to. In NASCAR, they’ve got fairly good parity in theory, over 25 cars could win, in practice, more in the 10-15 range. F1 has only 2-3 teams, but then F1 has horrible ratings in the US…