Good ol' days not so good

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Alan Jone » Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:19:24


The good ol' days weren't as good as today
Matt Crossman, Sporting News

More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
would be better if things were just like they used to be.

Um, no.

NASCAR says it is in the middle of its Golden Era, and I have a hard
time disagreeing after reading the stats below, sent out by NASCAR.
Check them out. Then come back and tell me the sport isn't better
now than it used to be.

# The last time a driver won by more than a lap was 1994. But that
used to happen all the time. In 1970, it happened 22 times in 48
races. It happened 110 times in the 1970s, 16 times in the 1980s and
just twice in the 1990s.

# More cars finish on the lead lap now than used to, and more cars
on the lead lap obviously means more competition. In 1976, only 6.3
percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- which in today's field
of 43 cars per race translates to just 2.7 cars. In 2006, 43.6
percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- 18.7 cars.

# With Hendrick Motorsports dominating this season, it might seem
like the wrong time to talk about multiple winners. But consider
this: There have been 13 winners this season -- the same number as
the total last season. In 1974, only five guys won all season. In
the 1970s, an average of 8.4 different drivers won races. In the
1980s, it was 10.8, and in the 1990s, it was 11.7. So far this
decade, the average is 15.1.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=241620

___

- http://groups.google.com/group/nascar-group
- http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/NASCAR-Group

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Mike/Speee » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:21:11


Quote:

> The good ol' days weren't as good as today
> Matt Crossman, Sporting News

> More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
> sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
> Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
> resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
> would be better if things were just like they used to be.

> Um, no.

> NASCAR says it is in the middle of its Golden Era, and I have a hard
> time disagreeing after reading the stats below, sent out by NASCAR.
> Check them out. Then come back and tell me the sport isn't better
> now than it used to be.

> # The last time a driver won by more than a lap was 1994. But that
> used to happen all the time. In 1970, it happened 22 times in 48
> races. It happened 110 times in the 1970s, 16 times in the 1980s and
> just twice in the 1990s.

> # More cars finish on the lead lap now than used to, and more cars
> on the lead lap obviously means more competition. In 1976, only 6.3
> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- which in today's field
> of 43 cars per race translates to just 2.7 cars. In 2006, 43.6
> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- 18.7 cars.

> # With Hendrick Motorsports dominating this season, it might seem
> like the wrong time to talk about multiple winners. But consider
> this: There have been 13 winners this season -- the same number as
> the total last season. In 1974, only five guys won all season. In
> the 1970s, an average of 8.4 different drivers won races. In the
> 1980s, it was 10.8, and in the 1990s, it was 11.7. So far this
> decade, the average is 15.1.

> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=241620

Damn janal, you finally cut, pasted, & posted something worthwhile to the
ng. Congrats.
Now will all of you "Na$car of today is terrible compared to the past"
weenies just STFU.

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Duncan Crai » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:38:08


Quote:

> The good ol' days weren't as good as today
> Matt Crossman, Sporting News

> More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
> sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
> Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
> resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
> would be better if things were just like they used to be.

> Um, no.

> NASCAR says it is in the middle of its Golden Era, and I have a hard
> time disagreeing after reading the stats below, sent out by NASCAR.
> Check them out. Then come back and tell me the sport isn't better
> now than it used to be.

> # The last time a driver won by more than a lap was 1994. But that
> used to happen all the time. In 1970, it happened 22 times in 48
> races. It happened 110 times in the 1970s, 16 times in the 1980s and
> just twice in the 1990s.

> # More cars finish on the lead lap now than used to, and more cars
> on the lead lap obviously means more competition. In 1976, only 6.3
> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- which in today's field
> of 43 cars per race translates to just 2.7 cars. In 2006, 43.6
> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- 18.7 cars.

> # With Hendrick Motorsports dominating this season, it might seem
> like the wrong time to talk about multiple winners. But consider
> this: There have been 13 winners this season -- the same number as
> the total last season. In 1974, only five guys won all season. In
> the 1970s, an average of 8.4 different drivers won races. In the
> 1980s, it was 10.8, and in the 1990s, it was 11.7. So far this
> decade, the average is 15.1.

> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=241620

> ___

> - http://groups.google.com/group/nascar-group
> - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/NASCAR-Group

Who was it that made the famous quote:  There are lies, damn lies, and
statistics."??
No, seriously, that's an interesting item.  I would question, though whether
the fact that there's more cars finishing on the lead lap now means better
racing.  More likely it means all the debris cautions & cautions for single
car harmless spins are MANIPULATING the race results so that there are more
cars on the lead lap at the end.  And it is dubious whether you can call
that better racing.
Other than that, I can't argue with the rest of the above.

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Vanda » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:49:59

Quote:



>>The good ol' days weren't as good as today
>>Matt Crossman, Sporting News

>>More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
>>sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
>>Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
>>resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
>>would be better if things were just like they used to be.

>>Um, no.

>>NASCAR says it is in the middle of its Golden Era, and I have a hard
>>time disagreeing after reading the stats below, sent out by NASCAR.
>>Check them out. Then come back and tell me the sport isn't better
>>now than it used to be.

>># The last time a driver won by more than a lap was 1994. But that
>>used to happen all the time. In 1970, it happened 22 times in 48
>>races. It happened 110 times in the 1970s, 16 times in the 1980s and
>>just twice in the 1990s.

>># More cars finish on the lead lap now than used to, and more cars
>>on the lead lap obviously means more competition. In 1976, only 6.3
>>percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- which in today's field
>>of 43 cars per race translates to just 2.7 cars. In 2006, 43.6
>>percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- 18.7 cars.

>># With Hendrick Motorsports dominating this season, it might seem
>>like the wrong time to talk about multiple winners. But consider
>>this: There have been 13 winners this season -- the same number as
>>the total last season. In 1974, only five guys won all season. In
>>the 1970s, an average of 8.4 different drivers won races. In the
>>1980s, it was 10.8, and in the 1990s, it was 11.7. So far this
>>decade, the average is 15.1.

>>http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=241620

> Damn janal, you finally cut, pasted, & posted something worthwhile to the
> ng. Congrats.
> Now will all of you "Na$car of today is terrible compared to the past"
> weenies just STFU.

Margin of victory, cars on the lead lap, and number of multiple winners
has nothing to do with the quality of racing compared to years past. You
don't hear people listing those as the reasons for racing today being
worse than racing 15 years ago.
Crossman is being a good little ass kisser and cherry-picking
differences that he thinks makes it better today (and he could only find
three?)
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Alan Jone » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:27:54

I agree that the lead lap portion of the article is debatable. Does
having YOUR favorite driver on the lead lap make the racing better
for everyone? Does the fact he got back on the lead lap via the
lucky dog diminish the accomplishment of a top 5 or 10 finish? Each
of us must ask ourselves those troubling questions during this off
weekend. :D

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:38:08 -0400, "Duncan Craig"

Quote:

>Who was it that made the famous quote:  There are lies, damn lies, and
>statistics."??
>No, seriously, that's an interesting item.  I would question, though whether
>the fact that there's more cars finishing on the lead lap now means better
>racing.  More likely it means all the debris cautions & cautions for single
>car harmless spins are MANIPULATING the race results so that there are more
>cars on the lead lap at the end.  And it is dubious whether you can call
>that better racing.
>Other than that, I can't argue with the rest of the above.

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Hamme » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:02:58


Quote:

> I agree that the lead lap portion of the article is debatable. Does
> having YOUR favorite driver on the lead lap make the racing better
> for everyone? Does the fact he got back on the lead lap via the
> lucky dog diminish the accomplishment of a top 5 or 10 finish? Each
> of us must ask ourselves those troubling questions during this off
> weekend. :D

Thanks for being honest enough to make the point I was thinking. The other
aspect is this: It used to be considered a great accomplishment just to finish
on the lead lap. And it was a real accomplishment, not like today with the
"Lucky Dog." This is another thing NASCAR has watered down in an attempt to
manufacture e***ment, and IMO is another thing (in addition to the Chase)
that takes prestige away from each individual race. I'd rather have only 5
guys finish on the lead lap knowing they deserve to be there than this present
system where a gift is given every time a caution occurs. IMO that makes the
past better.
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Noon » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:46:54

Quote:



>> I agree that the lead lap portion of the article is debatable. Does
>> having YOUR favorite driver on the lead lap make the racing better
>> for everyone? Does the fact he got back on the lead lap via the
>> lucky dog diminish the accomplishment of a top 5 or 10 finish? Each
>> of us must ask ourselves those troubling questions during this off
>> weekend. :D

> Thanks for being honest enough to make the point I was thinking. The
> other aspect is this: It used to be considered a great accomplishment
> just to finish on the lead lap. And it was a real accomplishment, not
> like today with the "Lucky Dog." This is another thing NASCAR has
> watered down in an attempt to manufacture e***ment, and IMO is another
> thing (in addition to the Chase) that takes prestige away from each
> individual race. I'd rather have only 5 guys finish on the lead lap
> knowing they deserve to be there than this present system where a gift
> is given every time a caution occurs. IMO that makes the past better.

But, but, but, the Lucky Dog was only invented for Dale Jr!
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Crusade » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:00:21


Quote:


>> The good ol' days weren't as good as today
>> Matt Crossman, Sporting News
>> More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
>> sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
>> Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
>> resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
>> would be better if things were just like they used to be.

>> Um, no.

>> NASCAR says it is in the middle of its Golden Era, and I have a hard
>> time disagreeing after reading the stats below, sent out by NASCAR.
>> Check them out. Then come back and tell me the sport isn't better
>> now than it used to be.

>> # The last time a driver won by more than a lap was 1994. But that
>> used to happen all the time. In 1970, it happened 22 times in 48
>> races. It happened 110 times in the 1970s, 16 times in the 1980s and
>> just twice in the 1990s.

>> # More cars finish on the lead lap now than used to, and more cars
>> on the lead lap obviously means more competition. In 1976, only 6.3
>> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- which in today's field
>> of 43 cars per race translates to just 2.7 cars. In 2006, 43.6
>> percent of cars finished on the lead lap -- 18.7 cars.

>> # With Hendrick Motorsports dominating this season, it might seem
>> like the wrong time to talk about multiple winners. But consider
>> this: There have been 13 winners this season -- the same number as
>> the total last season. In 1974, only five guys won all season. In
>> the 1970s, an average of 8.4 different drivers won races. In the
>> 1980s, it was 10.8, and in the 1990s, it was 11.7. So far this
>> decade, the average is 15.1.
>> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=241620

> Who was it that made the famous quote:  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."??
> No, seriously, that's an interesting item.  I would question, though whether the fact
> that there's more cars finishing on the lead lap now means better racing.  More likely
> it means all the debris cautions & cautions for single car harmless spins are
> MANIPULATING the race results so that there are more cars on the lead lap at the end.
> And it is dubious whether you can call that better racing.
> Other than that, I can't argue with the rest of the above.

As the self-appointed resident Stat Man of RASN, let me say this about that--
NASCAR's new stats have no meaning when compared to previous season stats.
Every one of their new stats have no meaning /relevance.
The only significant stat would be 'Passes for the lead under Green'.
Does N have that stat?
I recommend that no RASNer give any credence to N's new stats.
U'll only fall into the ball of confusion & reiterate N's BS.
CRU
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Joe » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:20:10


Quote:
> each individual race. I'd rather have only 5 guys finish
> on the lead lap knowing they deserve to be there than this
> present system where a gift is given every time a caution
> occurs. IMO that makes the past better.

In the past you could usually count on 3 or 4 cars getting a lap
back while the leader would slow down and let them by, how is that
any better?
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Alan Jone » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:49:39

It's not very much better but I can understand teammates doing that.

Quote:

>In the past you could usually count on 3 or 4 cars getting a lap
>back while the leader would slow down and let them by, how is that
>any better?

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Mark C » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:27


Quote:

> The good ol' days weren't as good as today
> Matt Crossman, Sporting News

> More than fans of any other sport, NASCAR fans are obsessed with the
> sport's history. Things are never as good as they used to be. The
> Southern 500 should be at Darlington; the Rock should be
> resurrected; Brian France should still be in diapers; the world
> would be better if things were just like they used to be.

The Southern 500 WAS only at Darlington. It doesn't exist any more as the
wonderful new era of NA$CAR decided the weekend (not the Southern 500 or
Rebel 500) belongs in California. Get your facts straight. I had the honor
of being at the last Southern 500, loved the treatment of the parking lot
crew as I had my DoD sticker on the car window and they offered me rock star
parking, I loved the town, I loved my neighbors in the stands and even
exchanged numbers to communicate with them for a while (couple of months).
People were great on an incredibly hot weekend and 'nowhere was heard a
disparaging word'. There's nothing like rubbing elbows with your sweaty
elbow with your sweaty elbowed neighbor. Nobody in the stands cared about
how many cars were on the lead lap. People were flipping of the elder Busch
during intros as the events between him and Jimmy Spencer were only a couple
of weeks old.
http://SportToday.org/

What is California's problem? They got the weekend, they have the 100 times
the population base, they should be able to build 150K seats and expect to
sell them all. They can't sell out with roughly 90K seats. Will NA$CAR
realize this mistake? Or...will they consider it a success since there might
be more advertising revenue available? If the latter, how does this make
NA$CAR better for me, just a fan? This isn't progress as far as I'm
concerned.

Couldn't resist linking this pic, not just for the message from the infield
either, snapped from my seat on Labor Day weekend in '03 in beautiful South
Carolina:
http://SportToday.org/

The rest of the weekend:
http://SportToday.org/'03.htm

Hell, even in '03 when ***head and Craven had the closest finish in
NA$CAR history, I'll betcha nobody in the stands cared for more than 2
minutes when the winner was declared. Most of that hoopla ('03 finish)
was/is teevee generated....keeping those on the couches interested.

To extend Brian France the gold star for saving the sport is idiotic and of
the short attention span ilk. He's an idiot who is hell bent on ruining this
sport, plain and simple. There was NOTHING broke and there is/was no reason
to fix it. All these new pacifists/suckups are REALLY beginning to bore and
tire me.

Thanks for letting me vent....
;-)

Mark C.

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Eric Casanav » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:56:16

Gosh, been 14 years since I read this group.

I think the Old vs. New Age argument could go on forever.  I think NASCAR
can present all the stats it wants, but for me the true measure of how great
an era was is how many "legends" it has produced.  NASCAR may think that the
Golden Age is now, and trumpet more "competition" as the reason, but all
that means to me is you have some real good drivers (who generally clog the
top 10 each race), and then 33 mediocre drivers.  An earlier poster made a
good point about things being watered down now with the lucky dog, chase
format, etc.  You can't even compare old vs. new anymore.

Honestly, aside from J Gordon, can anyone make a legitimate case for which
of today's 'crop' of NASCAR drivers will be revered as "legendary" 30 years
from now, like David Pearson, Richard Petty, Cale Yaborough, Bobby Allison,
Dale Sr. (started his first race in 1975 I think), and Darrell Waltrip are?
I mean, come on.  Bottom line is today you have a lot of polished haircuts
who look good on TV and say all the right things, but I defy anyone to name
another 6 drivers from this "era" who will mean anything to the sport 3
decades from now.

As I type this, another thing occurs to me.  How many drivers from today
will be driving competitively even 5 years from now?  They may be driving,
but with today's very fluid and superficial sponsorship system (i.e,
sponsors who want looks over talent), I think it will be very difficult for
a lot of drivers to either stay with the same good team for years, or bounce
from good team to good team every couple seasons.  Look at DW, he bounced
from good team to good team and was a winner the whole time, even when he
formed his own team.  Think something like this could happen these days?
Mark Martin is the closest thing to this.  And we'll have to see how Dale
Jr. does in a Hendrick car next year.  But by and large, I'd make the case
that any driver who leaves a good team does a nosedive within 2 years.  It
will happen to Kurt Busch, mark my words.  This guy was a champion 3 years
ago, but let's see where he is in 2009.

Be honest - and this isn't meant to be flamebait (is that even a term
anymore?  It was 14 years ago), does anyone here think that names like Kyle
or Kurt Busch, Kenseth, or even Johnson will be legendary figures 30 years
from now? They may be good right now (so was Sterling Marlin once upon a
time), but in today's watered down,
mediocre-level-of-competition-what-have-you-done-for-me-lately sport, these
guys will be remembered for being good but not great.  The system will churn
them out in 4-5 years, they might stick around as journeymen, but there
won't be any lasting legacy, unfortunately.

So this leads me to the conclusion that another benchmark of how good an era
imight be is how many drivers can last through several eras and still make a
difference?

And NASCAR would probably also point out that they have rarely had a repeat
champion in the last decade or so as more proof that there is "competition."
I think that's just an indicator that things have gone basically "mediocre."

The purse money and sponsorship money might be up, and this of course means
nothing but good things for NASCAR corporate, but the prestige of being a
cup driver these days is way DOWN, IMHO.

So I don't think this a golden age at all.

And since I can't resisit trivia, and others can correct me if I'm wrong,
but I think the last driver to win the race and lap the field was Geoff
Bodine at North Wilkesboro in 1994.  Terry Labonte finished 2nd that day,
and it was because GBodine did it on one less pit stop than everyone else
because of his Hoosier Tires.  Anyone else remember differently?

Eric.

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Chuck Ste » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:01:02


Quote:
>Honestly, aside from J Gordon, can anyone make a legitimate case for which
>of today's 'crop' of NASCAR drivers will be revered as "legendary" 30 years
>from now, like David Pearson, Richard Petty, Cale Yaborough, Bobby Allison,
>Dale Sr. (started his first race in 1975 I think), and Darrell Waltrip are?
>Eric.

30 years is a long time.
Even the ones you named, will be unfamiliar then, and
comparisons of them, to the then best of the best ,
will be like comparing Richard Petty, to Dale Earnhardt, to Jeff Gordon.
You most always think of people that you have seen,
as the best. It's only normal.
It's tough to think of Richard Petty being better than Jeff Gordon,
if all you have to go by is pictures and articles of Petty,
but have seen Gordon win dozens of times...
Some day, the same will happen with Jeff Gordon...

Right now, there is no doubt, that Tony Stewart is as good as anyone
in the country. He will be mentioned with the ones you mentioned.
Will he be in 30 years?
Ask someone 25 years old, if Jeff Gordon is as good as Cale Yarborough...
Now ask someone 55-60 years old.

Dan
****************************************
Why are there flotation devices in the seats of planes instead of  parachutes?

 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Hamme » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:41:44


Quote:

>> each individual race. I'd rather have only 5 guys finish
>> on the lead lap knowing they deserve to be there than this
>> present system where a gift is given every time a caution
>> occurs. IMO that makes the past better.

> In the past you could usually count on 3 or 4 cars getting a lap
> back while the leader would slow down and let them by, how is that
> any better?

At least they were close enough that they may have had a chance to get the lap
back on their own before the caution waved. Now the lucky dog can be anywhere,
and what's worse is that all those drivers after the dog have no chance either
way as the field gets frozen. Remember what happened to Burton during the
Chase last year when he kept trying to race his way back and was about to pass
the leader to pick up a lap but kept getting killed because he wasn't the dog?
 
 
 

Good ol' days not so good

Post by Hamme » Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:50:37


Quote:


>>In the past you could usually count on 3 or 4 cars getting a lap
>>back while the leader would slow down and let them by, how is that
>>any better?
> It's not very much better but I can understand teammates doing that.

Fixed it for you, Alan. You know better than to top post. Anyway, it wasn't
just teammates. It was often a sportsmanlike move to give others a break. I've
never understood why some had a problem with that. If they were a respected &
liked driver, they had more chances of others letting them pass. If they were
a Robby Gordon, then watching them get screwed had its benefits also. ;) Yeah,
the teammate aspect seemed unfair to smaller teams, but at least it was a
teammate aspect. I like that in sports, even NASCAR. And if nothing else, it
gave the announcers something to talk about during a boring caution.