October 23, 2007

By Brian Watkins

Brian Watkins

After Sunday's long, caution filled let down, a couple questions need to be asked.

The first is a simple one? Will NASCAR ever get it right when it comes to ending a race under caution?

They didn’t at Daytona, they didn’t at Kansas and they certainly didn’t at Martinsville. For all the waiting and watching we got bupkiss.

Yes, Johnson was in the lead when the final caution flew, and yes, the rules clearly state that there is only one attempt at a green-white-checker finish. But why is that? Don’t drivers deserve a true end to their hours sweating it out behind the wheel? Don’t fans at the track deserve something for their hours of time in the stands? And don’t the fans at home deserve some sort of closure after enduring hours of commercials and cut-a-way cars? I say yes to all three, and I think most would agree.

What would it hurt to run it 'till it’s done?

What would be lost by actually having a winner and not a default selection determined by the drop of a flag?

Yes, it would be a longer event. Yes, TV time is expensive but I think NASCAR has figured out how to squeeze every nickel out of each race. I understand that rules are rules, well, at least in most sports. But in the interest of the sport and the spectators that make the sport the incredibly lucrative industry that it is; and given the fact that NASCAR has frequently altered their rules or offered varying interpretations of said rules when it feels it is warranted, shouldn’t the rules be tweaked to end the boring, no closure kind of finish we saw on Sunday?

Some may argue that the races are long enough already: a 10 lap shoot out or racing until a clear winner is determined would make a long day even longer.

Well, that brings me to question number two: Why do the races need to be so long to begin with?

A shorter race leaves more room at the end for “over time racing” and eliminates some of the tedium of fans in the stands and in their homes. It would even mean reduced fuel use and fewer emissions; which would also please the environmentalists (if one chooses to worry at all about their latest concerns). But wouldn’t a shorter race mean less action? Less racing? I think not, and I offer the last race at Talladega as an example.

The first half of the race, if not the first two-thirds, was spent with drivers cautiously turning laps in small single file groups, plotting to avoid any trouble on the track. Not much racing there. In the media booths and in many stadium and couch seats, the majority of the race was spent anticipating the same “Big One” the cars on the track were trying to avoid.

It wasn’t until the final 50 laps or so that we saw much racing at all. The same can be said for most races as well. A lot of laps are spent just trying to make it to the racing part of the race. So, why not just knock off a quarter or a third of the distance? Take out a bit of the tedium and condense the action.

I’m not suggesting having a 30 lap sprint to the finish. Aside from the name (you can’t call a 350 a 500) I don’t think many fans would notice a negative impact. Not being, having been, or having a chance to be a driver, I can’t comment on what they would think, but from a fans perspective I only see a positive turn.

Any change is always uncomfortable, but since when has that stopped NASCAR? Things change every season, even big things. Next year will see big changes in teams, in series names and sponsors. Rules will be changed, dropped and altered. I hope the way cautions are treated at the end of the race, and race lengths are two major changes that will be considered.

The thoughts and ideas expressed by this writer or any other writer on Insider Racing News, are not necessarily the views of the staff and/or management of IRN.