No return to historic start time

[MDS]

Per jaskyi


Changing Indy 500 start time not being discussed: For those hoping that the Indianapolis 500 might change its start time to encourage drivers to be able to do both the IndyCar Series race and the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Coca-Cola 600 on the same day, think again. Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corp. President and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Belskus, who oversees both the IRL and the race track, said Tuesday during a news conference at the track that he has had no discussions about changing the start time since taking over the position three weeks ago. The Indianapolis 500 start time likely would have to change from its recent 1 p.m. EDT slot for it to be possible for a driver to do both events. It would be hard for Lowe's Motor Speedway to start the NASCAR race later than 5:45 p.m. because of the length of the 600-mile race, which takes more than four hours to complete. With the crossover of open-wheel drivers to NASCAR - such as #14-Tony Stewart, #42-Juan Pablo Montoya, #7-Robby Gordon, #34-John Andretti and #77-Sam Hornish Jr. - heavy interest could be generated if drivers could do both races and rumors have circulated that the start time could be alteredOf course I think this is pretty stupid. Chip and Roger could easily field extra cars for JPM and Sam, and Robby has said several times that he'd run the 500 again if given the opportunity, Junior has expressed interest as well. I think pushing back the start time would generate more buzz for both series, and far and exceed than make up for any lost audience that the hour-later start time gets.


It's probably also costing the IRL a team too. I'm a fairly decent aquantence with Robby and see him a couple of times a year. We were talking about going back to the Brickyard and he said if the start time were at noon his ideal would be to run a full time team or two with him running a partial schedule. So this year we probably would have seen a full time team and Robby in a car at places like Long Beach, Toronto, and Chicago, which certainly could have helped ratings.

Good call IRL management!

[SarahFan]

there sure seems to be a damn good reason to run it earlier.....

and not a single one to run it later


pretty much sums up AOWR

[Chamoo]

there sure seems to be a damn good reason to run it earlier.....

and not a single one to run it later


pretty much sums up AOWR

Well, I think that starting it later for the west coast isn't a bad idea.

[chuck34]

Well, I think that starting it later for the west coast isn't a bad idea.

Why is it that we have to do everything for the west coast? We start the World Series, College Football champ. game, College Basketball champ. game, Super Bowl, etc. etc. late so that the west coast people can watch. Well that's great, the west coast people can now watch the whole game. But us east coast people can only watch the start of the game because we have to get up and go to work the next day. And who cares about the start? It's the end of the game that matters. What is so wrong about starting things at a reasonable time for the east coast people to watch the end, even if that means the west coasters don't get to see the start? Sorry for the rant, and it really doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

As for the actual topic, I think this is one of the worst decisions that has been made. Like Ken says, I don't see any up side, only down.

[SarahFan]

Well, I think that starting it later for the west coast isn't a bad idea.



well im almost west coast...and grew up west coast

I rarely missed a 500......seriosly how many folks aren't up by 9am?.... even on a sunday?

[DBell]

Why is it that we have to do everything for the west coast? We start the World Series, College Football champ. game, College Basketball champ. game, Super Bowl, etc. etc. late so that the west coast people can watch. Well that's great, the west coast people can now watch the whole game. But us east coast people can only watch the start of the game because we have to get up and go to work the next day. And who cares about the start? It's the end of the game that matters. What is so wrong about starting things at a reasonable time for the east coast people to watch the end, even if that means the west coasters don't get to see the start? Sorry for the rant, and it really doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

Most on the west coast don't get to see the whole game, such as a World Series game. They typically start at 8:00 pm est. and most people in the west get home from work between 6 -7 pm. When I lived there I typically didn't get home until the game was half over or more. It's a compromise that'a not perfect for people on either coast.

[chuck34]

Most on the west coast don't get to see the whole game, such as a World Series game. They typically start at 8:00 pm est. and most people in the west get home from work between 6 -7 pm. When I lived there I typically didn't get home until the game was half over or more. It's a compromise that'a not perfect for people on either coast.

Not to drag this point out more than it needs to be, but that's what I'm saying. I know it a compromise, but it's a bad one for folks in the east. They can see the start (and 8:00 is optimistic in most cases that is when the coverage starts, not the game), but must go to bed before halftime in a lot of cases. Say the guys on the west coast get home at 7:00pm that's 10:00pm east. In a lot of championship games (if they started at 7:30-8:00 est) that would be about halftime. Therefore the guys on the west can see the end of the game, and the guys out east can see the whole game, including the east.

But perhaps I'm biased being an east coast guy. I just want to be able to watch the end of the Super Bowl and not be dead tired the next day at work.

[SarahFan]

now days does anyone not have access to TIVO... or some way to record an event.....

[ykiki]

Not to drag this point out more than it needs to be, but that's what I'm saying. I know it a compromise, but it's a bad one for folks in the east. They can see the start (and 8:00 is optimistic in most cases that is when the coverage starts, not the game), but must go to bed before halftime in a lot of cases. Say the guys on the west coast get home at 7:00pm that's 10:00pm east. In a lot of championship games (if they started at 7:30-8:00 est) that would be about halftime. Therefore the guys on the west can see the end of the game, and the guys out east can see the whole game, including the east.

But perhaps I'm biased being an east coast guy. I just want to be able to watch the end of the Super Bowl and not be dead tired the next day at work.

You know, there are some things that just don't make sense to me - such as the 6:20 ET / 3:20 PT Super Bowl kickoff time. It's a Sunday - no one on the West Coast is clamoring to have the Super Bowl start at such a freakishly weird time as 3:20. West Coast people I know would rather watch the game at 4:00 ET/1:00 PT, which is when they're used to watching the NFL anyway. As far as other sporting events starting at 8:00/5:00, don't blame the fans on either coast - blame the networks. The networks know that 8:00 is Prime Time, and that's when they (and more importantly their advertizers) are going to want to show it. I still think that weekend World Series games should be played in the afternoon, but that's a rant for another time...

Now, back on topic. I grew up on the West Coast and never had a problem with the old start time of the I500. Weren't the ratings better with the earlier start time as well? If people could find the race on ABC back then they certainly can find it on ABC now. I know there are other factors for falling ratings, but one would think that switching back to the earlier time would gain more "crossover" entries, which could lead to some interesting storylines, which would draw more "crossover" fans, which would please sponsors...

Obviously it would never work.