Oreo/ESPN on Iowa and Bullrings

[Mark in Oshawa]

I know it will make some poster's head explode but the # don't lie. Adding more ovals is not the way to go.

4 ovals races a season is more than enough.

I keep looking for how Iowa was a failure Tony. Cant see it...the stands were packed, the racing was good, and it was a good TV program. Repeat that about 7 times a season, you cannot tell me that isn't a good thing.

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I couldnt agree more. Ditch more road courses and bring more ovals.

And If Danica found new speed and won Toronto in a few weeks, you would want all street tracks.

You are a fan, and not objective. OH well, your girl goes to NASCAR, and she can run ovals all she wants...and if she doesn't do well....what tracks will you advocate for then?

[garyshell]

I dont know how anyone can get bored with the fast speed of side by side racing, especially going 3 wide on an oval. Its much more exciting than seeing a parade of cars driving on a road course playing follow the leader.

You do now.

Passing, when happening all the time, gets boring really quick.

1 pass on a road course is much more exciting than cars droning side-by-side, lap after lap on an oval.

To quote Paul Simon, "one man's ceiling is another man's floor". You are BOTH wrong. For many of us, BOTH forms of racing are exciting. It is this attempt to partition the sport into two separate camps that is a load of cr@p. Good old King George started it with his "vision" and the cr@pwagon crowd took up the other side. Well the war is over, we now thankfully have a series that embraces BOTH types of racing. If the two of you want to see all ovals or all road/street courses, there are other series that will satisfy your tastes.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

I keep looking for how Iowa was a failure Tony. Cant see it...the stands were packed, the racing was good, and it was a good TV program. Repeat that about 7 times a season, you cannot tell me that isn't a good thing.

I saw:
Lowest turnout in the event's history. Oval racing(Don't call it good as that is totally subjective) and a unimaginative and formulaic TV program.

So I can very easily say that it isn't a good thing.

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

[garyshell]

Sorry, as much as I am a road racing/street racing defender, I am wise enough to know that the series needs both formats to do well for the series to succeed.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

Hmm, lets see we have the history of CART pre 1996 which ran a mixed series to much success. Then along came King George and his all oval "vision" which begat the Champcar juggernaut to replace many of the ovals with street/road races giving us a mostly non-oval series. And hmmmm, let's see how successful were those two? So whataya got, to support YOUR assertion that a mixed series is NOT needed?

Gary

[anthonyvop]

Hmm, lets see we have the history of CART pre 1996 which ran a mixed series to much success.

Gary

1996 is ancient history when it comes to entertainment marketing.

In 1996 NASCAR wasn't yet the monolith of racing in the USA it is now.

In 1996 the Indy 500 had double the TV numbers and tickets were still hard to come by.

In 1996 the Internet was just becoming a part of popular culture.

In 1996 "Speedvision" debuted.

[garyshell]

1996 is ancient history when it comes to entertainment marketing.

In 1996 NASCAR wasn't yet the monolith of racing in the USA it is now.

In 1996 the Indy 500 had double the TV numbers and tickets were still hard to come by.

In 1996 the Internet was just becoming a part of popular culture.

In 1996 "Speedvision" debuted.

None of which supports your assertion that a mixed series is not a better one.

Gary

[Mark in Oshawa]

I saw:
Lowest turnout in the event's history. Oval racing(Don't call it good as that is totally subjective) and a unimaginative and formulaic TV program.

So I can very easily say that it isn't a good thing.

Lowest turnout in the event's history? Really? Did the track lose so many fans they wont bother next year? Hardly. I saw full stands...it is a small track...Using your logic, NASCAR would dump Atlanta entirely and give up on Fontana entirely.

You haven't said one good thing about Indycar racing in any post I can remember, so your opinion is taken with a grain of salt personally....
I hate boring oval races, and love good ones..and I saw a good broadcast with great racing. IF you didn't see that, it is because you chose not to.

How do you know that? Is there any proof that you can provide to back up the need for a mixed format for the series to be successful?

Gee...I guess the last 5 years before the split were just a mirage? My god Tony, you are dense with your private agenda.

This series needs fans of oval racing AND road racing, and they cannot exclude either. They really need more fans or one or the other to clue in to this reality, but this is the legacy left from the idiocy of the split.

You always ask for proof Tony. First off, prove the numbers are down with something other than your opinion ( attendance may be down for all I know but I didn't see much empty grandstand on TV so it couldn't be down much, and the numbers may be down for other reasons besides the popularity of the IRL). Secondly prove to me how CART having tracks of all types in a balanced schedule was a failure. Show it to me....ratings then were as high as NASCAR's or at least in the relative conversation, and events such as the race in Toronto drew 70000 plus on race day, and Indy drew big crowds for Bubble day and the like ( something they haven't since) and Michigan drew well. In short, the series had fans of all the types of tracks. Your assertions are your opinion....and that only.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I dont know how anyone can get bored with the fast speed of side by side racing, especially going 3 wide on an oval. Its much more exciting than seeing a parade of cars driving on a road course playing follow the leader.

Because 3 wide on a oval with room for 5 cars isn't showing skill. Also, on a road course, it takes skill to pass and skill to find speed. Something your girl hasn't always exhibited. When one understands there is more to racing than holding your foot to the floor, then you might begin to understand the actual skill required.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You do now.

Passing, when happening all the time, gets boring really quick.

1 pass on a road course is much more exciting than cars droning side-by-side, lap after lap on an oval.

That was why Iowa worked for both camps. IT wasn't a slam dunk to get by but guys who figured out the setup and found the line could pass...so there was action, but it still required the drivers to find just the right line, time their use of the PTP and adjust the car as they went on.