Comments on: Dumping Start-And-Parkers Presents Problems

By: Rick Minter

Rick Minter — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:25:39 +0000

Tracy, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was including Blaney among the start and parkers. My point was that if you start making rules to penalize the underfunded teams, you’ll likely cause undeserved problems for drivers and teams that are trying to work their way up to the elite status.
Rick

By: dick

dick — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:07:40 +0000

It’s been several years ago now, but I recall hearing or reading that NASCAR was contractually required to start 43 cars. I believe it was the contract with television networks. Any input on that?

By: Tracy

Tracy — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:32:07 +0000

I wouldn’t call TBR a start-and-park team any more, IMO. Look at how far they have come since they opened their doors back in 2009. Take this week, for instance. They have announced in three days that they have tree different sponsors on for their second car. Yes, a second car. They still have four more days of announcements left according to their 7 in 7 deal that they have going on. I think we need to applaud teams like this that are working their butts off in difficult economic times like these. I can’t imagine it’s easy to do…

By: Brian Hines

Brian Hines — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:34:53 +0000

In the “good old days” of the ’70s & ’80s, the costs to start up a Cup team and race the entire season was considerably less than today. In today’s world, the so-called “lucrative” start money in a Cup race enables a “start & park” team to form, enter and then race as best it can under very difficult funding restraints. If this “lucrative” start money was not available, then the Tommy Baldwins and Phil Parsons of the world would never have materialized and the 43-car starting fields would have gone the way of the Do-Do bird. Also, there is always the potential for a “start & Park” team to eventually evolve into a legitimate and compettive race team over time. It is best to consider the “lucrative” start Cup purse as “seed money” for new and aspiring teams. IMO, Bruton Smith is way off on this one and most likely doesn’t like having to pay such high purse money to these type teams. To a promoter, it is the cost of doing business and having a NASCAR Cup race sanction. Nothing more, nothing less.

By: Russ Edwards

Russ Edwards — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:29:10 +0000

Maybe the real problem is that it is no longer possible to find enough sponsors to (a) quench the megateams insatiable desire for funding, plus those who want to, for whatever reason, race in Sprint Cup.
New sponsors of any substance either go directly to Nascar, or one of the mega teams, not to one of the mid or back packers. Until that changes, and it wont, either live with the S&P’s or restrict the entry list to the number of cars the mega teams are able to field.