Daytona 500

**brianhos** · 02-19-2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

That's the funniest thing I've heard in awhile.

Also, how do you know Tiger is an athlete...have you seen him play basketball, baseball, or football? Because I haven't. Just because someone is in shape, doesn't mean they are an athlete.

And I'll be creating a seperate thread to continue the "Is it a sport" debate.

I have seen what he does for training, he is a great athlete.

**jtd9046** · 02-19-2007, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

The attendance of the nfl has to be way above that.

If you take the NFL, you have 15or so x 16 weeks x 50k fans per game = 12M

Nascar 30 weeks x 200k per race = 6M.

College football is probably much much higher than that even.

Add in the Busch series races on Saturday's and you have your 12M in 60 events. Compared to over 240 events for football.

And how many college football teams are there? I love football but to say NASCAR doesn't have a big draw is narrow minded.

**brianhos** · 02-19-2007, 08:36 AM

It is big yeah, but not the biggest like some say it is.

**cycloneworld** · 02-19-2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

It is big yeah, but not the biggest like some say it is.

Per event it's the biggest. Bigger than the World Series, Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and the Stanley Cup finals combined.

And there are 36 races in the season.

**brianhos** · 02-19-2007, 08:43 AM

But if the super bowl could seat 300k people because the field was 1 mile long, it would fill it. Amount of fans at a single event depends totally on the venue.

**jtd9046** · 02-19-2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Per event it's the biggest. Bigger than the World Series, Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and the Stanley Cup finals combined.

I am going to jump ship on this argument, haha. If the venue could hold them, I woul bet you would see a lot more ppl at the events listed. One thing NASCAR has going for attendance is the mere facts that the track is so large they can add endless amount of seating.

**cycloneworld** · 02-19-2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

But if the super bowl could seat 300k people because the field was 1 mile long, it would fill it. Amount of fans at a single event depends totally on the venue.

But there aren't that many seats for a football game so per event, Nascar is bigger. Nascar purposely chooses tracks that have huge seating capacities so they can make as much money on gate sales as possible.

**mustangwinner97** · 02-19-2007, 09:24 AM

Maybe they should have next years NFL Superbowl at Bristol. It holds 165k people and Bruton Smith is trying to get a game in there.

**ISUKyro** · 02-19-2007, 09:26 AM

Didn't hockey do that once a long time ago?? Didn't they play a game at Michigan or somewhere really big like that just to set the attendance record?

**mustangwinner97** · 02-19-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by ISUKyro

Didn't hockey do that once a long time ago?? Didn't they play a game at Michigan or somewhere really big like that just to set the attendance record?

The Spartan Stadium currently holds the world record for the largest ice hockey crowd in history. On October 6, 2001, a rink was constructed at the center of the stadium for Michigan State's opening season game against archrival Michigan. Dubbed "The Cold War", 74,554 watched No. 1 nationally ranked Michigan State and No. 4 nationally ranked Michigan skate to a 3-3 tie.

**jbhtexas** · 02-19-2007, 11:13 AM

My question for NASCAR is more and more becoming, from a racing and sporting standpoint, what's the point??? Particularly when it comes to restrictor plate racing. To me, the D500 looks like it is set up to encourage a big wreck, rather than decide a winner based on who has the best race car and driving skills.

Basically, what it came down to in the D500 yesterday was a race of a few laps. The whole show was stopped to clean up the inevitable "big one" that always happens towards the end of restrictor plate races, when 30 cars going 180 MPH are artificially stacked up in a big bunch. Then they raced for a couple of laps to determine the "winner". What was the point of the first 490 or miles? Most likely anybody who was able to work themselves up to front for a good finish was wiped out in the last lap wreck.

If the track is unsafe for the cars of today, then change the track and let the racing decide the winner. Don't cripple the cars and bunch them up so that they inevitably wreck each other. About the only thing that restrictor plate racing is a measure of is who has the best accident avoidance skills.

Now with this Car of Tomorrow, NASCAR is trying to homogenize all the hardware. It seems like NASCAR is trying to turn every race into a restrictor plate race.

**cycloneworld** · 02-19-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

My question for NASCAR is more and more becoming, from a racing and sporting standpoint, what's the point??? Particularly when it comes to restrictor plate racing. To me, the D500 looks like it is set up to encourage a big wreck, rather than decide a winner based on who has the best race car and driving skills.

Basically, what it came down to in the D500 yesterday was a race of a few laps. The whole show was stopped to clean up the inevitable "big one" that always happens towards the end of restrictor plate races, when 30 cars going 180 MPH are artificially stacked up in a big bunch. Then they raced for a couple of laps to determine the "winner". What was the point of the first 490 or miles? Most likely anybody who was able to work themselves up to front for a good finish was wiped out in the last lap wreck.

If the track is unsafe for the cars of today, then change the track and let the racing decide the winner. Don't cripple the cars and bunch them up so that they inevitably wreck each other. About the only thing that restrictor plate racing is a measure of is who has the best accident avoidance skills.

Now with this Car of Tomorrow, NASCAR is trying to homogenize all the hardware. It seems like NASCAR is trying to turn every race into a restrictor plate race.

The big reason for restrictor plate racing is to keep the cars' speed down on the large, wide-open tracks. When stock cars get to speeds of over 200 mph, there is a serious safety concern. The plate keeps these speeds down to 185-190. Although for a few races per season, it is interesting to see which drivers have the ability to win a race where the cars are almost identical performance-wise.

But I agree with you on the COT. I know that they say the primary reason is for safety but I'm not so sure that is the case.

**jbhtexas** · 02-19-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

The big reason for restrictor plate racing is to keep the cars' speed down on the large, wide-open tracks. When stock cars get to speeds of over 200 mph, there is a serious safety concern. The plate keeps these speeds down to 185-190.

That was my point. Daytona on its own is no longer a "safe" track for Nextel-Cup class cars; the race car technology has exceeded the limits that the track design itself can impose on the speed of the cars. So in order to accomodate for the "outdated" track design, NASCAR imposes the restrictor plate, which makes the race one in which a huge multi-multi-car wrecks are likely to happen at any time (and often do). Is the race really any safer?

I feel bad for the teams that will be seriously contending for the cup...they run for 499 miles and are looking at a good finish, only to get wiped out because one car messes up and takes out 25 others. IMO, if NASCAR wants to have these demolition derby races that are set up for big wrecks, they should leave those races out of the points chase.

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Although for a few races per season, it is interesting to see which drivers have the ability to win a race where the cars are almost identical performance-wise.

Isn't that what IROC is for?

**chadm** · 02-19-2007, 01:14 PM

Isn't that what IROC is for?

IROC also brings in the better drivers from different types of racing. The NASCAR drivers have an advantage due to the the car not being open wheel. This is a way to challenge the driving ability of the different drivers.
I have stayed out of this discussion for a while. I just need to vent that a thread I started to discuss the race was hijacked by a few outspoken individuals. If you feel the need to criticize what others enjoy, start your own thread and rip it there. I can choose not to read it. I will say that my opinion of a few of you has changed. Using stereotypes of NASCAR fans as hillbillys, etc. Do you realize you placed me in that group as well as others on this site? I thought personal attacks were forbidden.

Off my soapbox.

**cycloneworld** · 02-19-2007, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

That was my point. Daytona on its own is no longer a "safe" track for Nextel-Cup class cars; the race car technology has exceeded the limits that the track design itself can impose on the speed of the cars. So in order to accomodate for the "outdated" track design, NASCAR imposes the restrictor plate, which makes the race one in which a huge multi-multi-car wrecks are likely to happen at any time (and often do). Is the race really any safer?

I agree with you there. But NASCAR isn't going to abandon Daytona because the cars are too good for the track. And yes, the race cars are alot safer than they were 2 years ago. With the "demolition derby" you called Daytona, how many people were even injured yesterday? Also, a car crossed the finish line upside-down while on fire and the driver climbed right out.

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

I feel bad for the teams that will be seriously contending for the cup...they run for 499 miles and are looking at a good finish, only to get wiped out because one car messes up and takes out 25 others. IMO, if NASCAR wants to have these demolition derby races that are set up for big wrecks, they should leave those races out of the points chase.

The Daytona 500 doesn't count for more points than any other race. We all know that one bad race (or even several bad races) isn't going to doom anyone's season.