Robin Miller and Tony George with JMV on 1070 NOW [Archive]

Chris R

1st June 2011, 18:33

I have not quite finished the pod cast yet - but I have found it to be very interesting and kind of informative - nothing new or earth-shattering but interesting nonetheless..... I will say, Robin Miller needs to stop talking occasionally :) I also have to say, I have a little more respect for TG after listening... his perspective is a bit different - sounds like he sees the "split" as dating to the formation of CART more so than the formation of the IRL.... I am not sure I agree - but it makes a whole bunch of things make more sense...

Overall a good listen if not a little difficult because Robin speaks loudly and a lot (he interrupts constantly) and TG speaks quite softly and at a very measured pace....

Jag_Warrior

4th June 2011, 21:09

I also have to say, I have a little more respect for TG after listening... his perspective is a bit different - sounds like he sees the "split" as dating to the formation of CART more so than the formation of the IRL.... I am not sure I agree - but it makes a whole bunch of things make more sense...

That's pretty much how most of the old timer USAC/IRL fans see it - at least the ones I've encountered on the internet over the years and at races. In their opinion, the formation of the IRL was just the second wave of the war, which started when CART was formed. IMO, it's about the same as the neo-Confederate types that I often run into at gunshows, who wear those "The South Will Rise Again!" t-shirts. They couldn't let it go, and so now we have spec racers and Danica Patrick as the most recognized face of the sport.

Something that I haven't said for a long time, but I still believe: "Thanks, Tony. Thanks for everything. And given the opportunity, my size 13 shoe would still love to meet your @$$! - just to say 'hi' a few (dozen) times."

downtowndeco

5th June 2011, 00:18

Chris R

5th June 2011, 01:35

ok sorry I brought it up..... I can sympathize with both sides although I tend to agree more with the CART folk.... I think it is very fair to say that Indy car style racing has never really had a good leader (either as a person or organization) for the entire SERIES. Really, either "side" pointing fingers at the other is the pot calling the kettle black.....

What I did find interesting about the interview was that TG actually came across as much more informed than I expected and he had an informed sense of his place in racing history... I still think the IRL split did more damage than good and was avoidable whereas the CART split did more good than harm and was probably necessary at the time.....

Jag_Warrior

5th June 2011, 03:03

"Couldn't let it go? Indycars fans aren't the ones with a WWII Japanese bunker like site that does nothing but rehash over and over again how wronged they were by TG & the IRL & how they await the day (like the second coming of christ) when Indycar will fail & the DP01 will rise again. That you'd like to physically assault TG tells me you might fit in the same camp as them.

It might surprise you as I say this, but you do make a valid point, in regard to the site in question. I haven't posted there for several years, but as far as I know, I am still a registered member there and there are still people there who I had a lot of good times with. I stopped posting well before CCWS collapsed, because it was not a series that had much value to me. I mostly watched F1 and GP from then on... pretty much where I am now. Some people tried to see things that weren't there. They needed to believe in that Three Amigos BS. That was then - I don't know how many still buy into that. But the ones who still believe that CCWS will rise from the ashes are as mistaken as the old USAC people who couldn't accept that their day was done. We now have whatever it is that we have. There is little demand for what we have, and there's even less demand for someone to create yet another open wheel series in this country. So I think we should all just accept that it is what it is: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together and if you can't deal with that reality, best to find another sport to follow. The passion I once felt for AOWR is gone. But the passion I've felt for F1 has increased. So I'm happy on the one hand, but at the same time sad that AOWR is in such a hard spot. Though maybe the new car and some new faces will help Indy Car to turn things around over time. I hope so. But if not, I'll still be glued to the F1 races every other Sunday morning.

And BTW, it really hurts me to think that you'd hold me responsible for what my shoe would like to do. How can I be responsible for the actions of a shoe? Just a few minutes ago, the right shoe said that he'd like to kick TG in the mouth and the left said, "go ahead, while I nail him in the nads." I'm a peaceful man. But my shoes are hella violent. I think they both had bad childhoods or something. :dozey:

And BTW, say "hi" to the lads over at T/F for me. :wave: Anybody over there still blaming sunspot activity for the crappy ratings? Speaking of sites where there are people who are separated from reality by a couple of miles... :D

call_me_andrew

5th June 2011, 04:22

Is there a less charasmatic man than Tony George?

Wilf

5th June 2011, 05:08

hmmmm Charisma vs. honesty? There sure are a lot of charismatic speakers out there. I'm not sure there are that many honest charismatic speakers. It really surprised me that Robin kept insisting that TG never mislead him

downtowndeco

5th June 2011, 07:19

This I have to agree with. For what ever TG is or is not, what ever he did or did not do, he is, IMO, a terrible spokesperson. That's OK, that's just who he is. I'd rather have him be himself for good or bad than the rah rah BS you get from some CEO's.

Is there a less charasmatic man than Tony George?

downtowndeco

5th June 2011, 07:21

It does surprise me but thanks for the honest answer. We just see things different, which is OK, the world is big enough for different points of view. Cheers.

It might surprise you as I say this, but you do make a valid point, in regard to the site in question.

DBell

5th June 2011, 16:56

And BTW, it really hurts me to think that you'd hold me responsible for what my shoe would like to do. How can I be responsible for the actions of a shoe? Just a few minutes ago, the right shoe said that he'd like to kick TG in the mouth and the left said, "go ahead, while I nail him in the nads." I'm a peaceful man. But my shoes are hella violent. I think they both had bad childhoods or something. :dozey:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Thanks for the laugh. That deserves a :beer:

Jag_Warrior

5th June 2011, 20:09

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Thanks for the laugh. That deserves a :beer:

Thanks! I will gladly take the :beer: ... but none for my shoes. They're both mean drunks.

DBell

6th June 2011, 19:29

Neither one was a complete heel and they've both got a lot of sole.

You should ban yourself for a week for that one. :D

Mark in Oshawa

7th June 2011, 17:34

Wilf

7th June 2011, 18:14

I think Tony is a nice guy. I don't doubt his family loves him as a man, he is a gentle and kind soul. That said, he had NO business doing what he did unless he created something better and bigger from the hell he put people through. Well we know the answer to that don't we?

AS for Robin being full of his own BS, that is his charm. I love the guy, but he does love to hear himself talk I think....just he has a tremendous ability to cut through BS and put is own in...lol

Oh no, here we go.

I agree with your assessment of Robin, but he is entertaining.

However, I don't think we have an answer to whether or not he created something better or bigger unless you consider AOWR ended with his termination. As I have indicated before, I believe his goal was to ensure the continued success of the Indianapolis 500 and that the Indy Racing League was a tool to achieve his goal. He succeeded as long as he was permitted and I believe the Indianapolis 500 is continuing to improve.

I know we will not agree on this issue, but this post was your fault because you asked: "don't we?"

I hope everything is fine North of the boarder.

Jag_Warrior

7th June 2011, 20:22

However, I don't think we have an answer to whether or not he created something better or bigger unless you consider AOWR ended with his termination.

:confused: Huh?

Wilf

7th June 2011, 21:24

:confused: Huh?
My meaning was AOWR is continuing to develop, albeit without him, and so unless you want to make a decision based on a termination date, we still don't know how it will turn out. We do know how the alternative turned out.

Marbles

8th June 2011, 00:25

Oh no, here we go.

However, I don't think we have an answer to whether or not he created something better or bigger unless you consider AOWR ended with his termination. As I have indicated before, I believe his goal was to ensure the continued success of the Indianapolis 500 and that the Indy Racing League was a tool to achieve his goal. He succeeded as long as he was permitted and I believe the Indianapolis 500 is continuing to improve.

I know we will not agree on this issue, but this post was your fault because you asked: "don't we?"

Seriously, no offense Wilf, but how long have you been watching Indycar? You do realize that the Indy 500 went into a nosedive with the formation of the IRL and is still a mere shadow of what it once was for nearly a century!

Probably the spookiest thing for me was when George was toppled he had an interview shortly afterwards and stated he had, "unfinished business." That was scary! I guess he hadn't been given enough time to call in the wrecking balls!

Wilf

8th June 2011, 13:20

Seriously, no offense Wilf, but how long have you been watching Indycar? You do realize that the Indy 500 went into a nosedive with the formation of the IRL and is still a mere shadow of what it once was for nearly a century!

I'm a relative new comer to the situation, my first Indianapolis 500 was in 1967. I do, however, acknowledge there was a big drop in the mid 90's, but have you also noticed that it has continued to grow from that low point. Did you not find anything interesting or surprising in Robin's conversation with TG? How about Robin's comment that TG should have started the IRL in 1990?

chuck34

8th June 2011, 13:40

I know most will disagree with me. And this is territory we've probably been over many times before. But for the 500's attendance, popularity, etc, I think it was poised for a dive anyway. The speeds had peaked in '95/'96. No one was going to let these cars go 240+. Plus all the "name" drivers had pretty much retired (Foyt, Mario, Big Al, etc). As soon as you slow the cars down and loose the names, attendance and "newsworthyness" were necesarily going to tank at that point. The split just happened to happen at the same time. Had the split happened before, or after that crutial time in history who know what would have happened? I honestly suspect about the same outcome, but maybe without TG being the demon he's made out to be.

Chris R

8th June 2011, 13:50

Bob Riebe

8th June 2011, 17:40

I think CART had a major problem policing the manufacturers (as well as other issues) that was about ready to explode one way or the other - but the formation of the IRL certainly seemed to hasten the demise of the sport in general. I suspect Robin's assertion is fundamentally correct - the IRL should have been started earlier (or, in my opinion) later - after CART started to run into real problems...... overall the timing stunk and I think timing can be everything.....This will be rehashed infinitely, just as some still have conniptions about the so called "junk" formula eighty or so years ago.

CART, and or USAC plus the IRL should NEVER EVER have been policing any manufacturers. They should make a BASIC non-spec. set of rules and then let those who would come,-come, period.

George's main failing, beyond the silly 25/8 was the far more hypocritical and destructive spec. formula he created which in reality was the anti-thesis of what he had been postulating.

For me the 1996 race was one of the best ever, watching Cheever lapping at 236 because he had nothing better to do was fantastic, and despite of the rather farce the engine rules were, it was interesting for four or five years, but then George crapped on himself and went CART II.
Oh well what is done is done, que sera-sera.

djparky

8th June 2011, 20:25

Oh no, here we go.

I agree with your assessment of Robin, but he is entertaining.

However, I don't think we have an answer to whether or not he created something better or bigger unless you consider AOWR ended with his termination. As I have indicated before, I believe his goal was to ensure the continued success of the Indianapolis 500 and that the Indy Racing League was a tool to achieve his goal. He succeeded as long as he was permitted and I believe the Indianapolis 500 is continuing to improve.

I know we will not agree on this issue, but this post was your fault because you asked: "don't we?"

I hope everything is fine North of the boarder.

it's been a while since one of these discussions- from memory the Indy 500 was doing just fine under the CART rules, (and would have continued to do so, all the teams, drivers understood the importance of that race)- bumper grids, massive media interest with people like Mansell, Villeneuve, Unser, Andretti and so on. Multiple chassis, tyre and engine combos, big corporate sponsorship- the year after he started the IRL the grid comprised of washed up has beens like Cheever and another 30 drivers that no-one had ever heard of.

Only once the madness of the IRL/CART war ended has the I500 started to return to some of it's former glory- but still the only name Joe Bloggs knows is Danica Patrick

I don't see the I500 or IndyCar racing being any better than it was in 1995- in fact they've ended up with the same type of series they had in 1995- minus the good looking cars, decent TV ratings, packed grandstands at every race, blue chip corporate sponsorship- all thanks to Tony George and his moronic decision to form his own racing series, and the moronic leadership (or lack of) from CART (there you are- I'm trying to be fair with the criticism)

at least George is not running it now- and it is moving in the right direction finally, even though RB has inherited a massive stinking turd of a TV package from his predecessor

rant over!

Bob Riebe

8th June 2011, 21:15

it's been a while since one of these discussions- from memory the Indy 500 was doing just fine under the CART rulesThe Indianapolis 500 was never run under CART rules, it ran under USAC rules until George formed the IRL.

chuck34

9th June 2011, 12:32

massive media interest with people like Mansell, Villeneuve, Unser, Andretti and so on.

Mansell and Villeneuve weren't in IndyCar/CART in '96. Unser Jr, and Mikey were in the twilight of their careers. And the massive media interest was driven mainly by the speeds which would have gone away in '97 with or without the IRL.

Chris R

9th June 2011, 13:22

Mansell and Villeneuve weren't in IndyCar/CART in '96. Unser Jr, and Mikey were in the twilight of their careers. And the massive media interest was driven mainly by the speeds which would have gone away in '97 with or without the IRL.

Obviously it is speculation, but I suspect, without "the split" Unser would have been forced to get his stuff together earlier and might have had a longer career... I am pretty sure the competitive flame would have continued to burn for Michael with a more complete series and he could have easily continued competitively into the mid 2000's and if he had not started his own team (might not have if the series had not split) Marco could have come onto the scene in a manner that would allow him to develop properly as a driver etc......

My point is, some of the loss of "names" is attributable to "the split" either directly or indirectly... Similarly, CART had some great personalities like Alex Zanardi that people had no trouble embracing...... Somebody like Rahal was not a "name" - he made his own name in the 1980's, in CART, so you do not necessarily need to be a name to be followed and embraced by the fans.....

I think it is equally plausible that CART would have had problems regardless - if for no other reason than the market for sports has changed dramatically..... It is all academic anyway (not that I don't thoroughly enjoy discuss it to death :D )- we are stuck with what happened and that is that.....

garyshell

10th June 2011, 04:50

The Indianapolis 500 was never run under CART rules, it ran under USAC rules until George formed the IRL.

And how different were those rules from the actual CART rules when CART owners, drivers and cars participated at Indy. It is no coincidence that the CART cars were able to compete with little, if any, mods to meet the rules. You are talking about a difference without a distinction.

Gary

chuck34

10th June 2011, 12:38

Bob Riebe

10th June 2011, 20:05

And how different were those rules from the actual CART rules when CART owners, drivers and cars participated at Indy. It is no coincidence that the CART cars were able to compete with little, if any, mods to meet the rules. You are talking about a difference without a distinction.

GaryThe Mercedes and Buick, and any push-rod blown engines, as run at Indy, were not allowed under CART rules which is why their presence, in ANY form, in CART races was near zero.
I will say though that USAC's killing of the blown push-rod engines was asininely stupid.

The odd thing, although not really considering CART, was that Gurney had been pressing USAC for more displacement in true stock-block non-blown engines. You would have thought his CART buddies would have given him that. Nope they said screw-you and then they also finally banned the type car he developed in the eighties.
So Gurney Eagles disappeared from open wheel racing.
Nice bunch of guys.
When a group turns on one of its premier memebers, the fat lady is warming up.

Wilf

10th June 2011, 23:26

The odd thing, although not really considering CART, was that Gurney had been pressing USAC for more displacement in true stock-block non-blown engines. You would have thought his CART buddies would have given him that. Nope they said screw-you and then they also finally banned the type car he developed in the eighties.
So Gurney Eagles disappeared from open wheel racing.
Nice bunch of guys.
When a group turns on one of its premier memebers, the fat lady is warming up.

It makes you wonder if he shredded his copy of the infamous white paper which instigated the formation of CART.

DBell

11th June 2011, 15:13

It makes you wonder if he shredded his copy of the infamous white paper which instigated the formation of CART.

To start, I don't think of the White Paper as infamous. IMS and USAC may think of it that way, but I seriously doubt that Dan does. The circumstances that led Dan to write the paper didn't change, so I'm betting that Gurney still believes in what he wrote. He may have issues with some of the people that controlled CART, but that didn't stop him coming back to CART in the 90's with Toyota.

Mark in Oshawa

14th June 2011, 08:59

chuck34

14th June 2011, 13:10

The reality of it all? Whether you think Tony should be at fault or not, it is water under the bridge. I am of the opinion if the old era at Indy was ready for a decline, did we really need to make it a cliff by creating a situation where the CART teams basically would have to dance to Tony's tune and take all their talent and compete for 8 spots while 25 no hopers and never was types with second rate equipment and get in?

Only Tony would try to start a racing series by going out and telling the top teams in the sport that he was restricting their access.

And THAT in my humble opinion was his biggest mistake. Had Tony not put the 25/8 rule in place all the CART teams would have been at the '96 500 and likely the IRL would have taken over from CART. Of course that is an unprovable opinion that most here will disagree with. But it is my opinion.

anthonyvop

14th June 2011, 14:18

The odd thing, although not really considering CART, was that Gurney had been pressing USAC for more displacement in true stock-block non-blown engines. You would have thought his CART buddies would have given him that. Nope they said screw-you and then they also finally banned the type car he developed in the eighties.
So Gurney Eagles disappeared from open wheel racing.

Interesting take on history but completely wrong.

Gurney's AAR team left CART when he lost his Toyota sponsorship.

Bob Riebe

14th June 2011, 15:41

Interesting take on history but completely wrong.

Gurney's AAR team left CART when he lost his Toyota sponsorship.."
There was no Gurney entered Gurney Eagle in open wheel from 1987-1995.
By then CART was out of the Indianapolis 500, and his team lasted three years with no wins.

His last Indy car win was at Milwaukee with the Donovan alloy Chevy that CART would not give him the extra inches necessary so as to not to have to tune to hand-grenade levels.
OF course they banned the car it ran in, so from '87-'95 the founding father of CART was ostracized out of the game.

One can ignore that if one wants but as one TV announcer used to say, "that's the way it is."

Jag_Warrior

15th June 2011, 20:18

I do, however, acknowledge there was a big drop in the mid 90's, but have you also noticed that it has continued to grow from that low point.

Not really. It has only continued to exist. But it has not continued to grow from that low point... because 1996 did not represent the lowest point. The only recovery we've seen is in recent car counts at Indy (and some other events). But as measured by viewership and ratings, the Indy 500 is in a lower position today than it's been in any year, other than 2009 and 2010. 2010 is currently the record low for ratings and viewership. 2009 and 2011 represent the next two lowest rated Indy 500's in the television history of the race.

The ratings for the Indy 500 averaged 9.34 in the 1991-1995 period - with a low of 8.0 and a high of 10.9. In the 1996-2000 period, the ratings averaged 5.82 - with a low of 5.0 and a high of 7.1. In the 2001-2005 period, the average was 5.16 - with a low of 4.1 and a high of of 6.5. In the 2006-2010 period, the average was 4.28 - with a low of 3.6 and a high of 5.0. What we've seen is lower lows and lower highs in each succeeding five year period.

To be fair, the ratings for Indy have been in decline since the 1970's, as American's viewing choices and habits began to change. But never before was there this type of precipitous drop off in viewership.

Plus all the "name" drivers had pretty much retired (Foyt, Mario, Big Al, etc). As soon as you slow the cars down and loose the names, attendance and "newsworthyness" were necesarily going to tank at that point. The split just happened to happen at the same time. Had the split happened before, or after that crutial time in history who know what would have happened? I honestly suspect about the same outcome, but maybe without TG being the demon he's made out to be.

I'm not one who believes in fate. Proper root cause analysis can explain most any outcome. And "name drivers" always go away. That happens in every sport and every business, as we're dealing with mortal humans. But what has always happened at Indy (and other *successful* sports and businesses) is you'd have a changing of the guard... a passing of the torch, if you will. Richard Petty retired, and there was Dale Earnhardt. Dale Earnhardt died, and there was Jeff Gordon. Jeff Gordon is slowing, and there is Kyle Busch and Jimmie Johnson. Same with F1: Lauda --> Prost --> Senna --> Schumacher --> Alonso --> Hamilton/Vettel (or something like that). The IRL (IMO) suffers from a "lost decade", where there either was no one to pass the torch to, or the wrong driver was given the torch (a bikini model who'd never won an auto race in her life at that point). But it's always been my belief that in order to be a someone, you have to beat a someone. I'm not convinced that Tony George (or his sycophants) understood that. They seemed to think that just racing at IMS could/would make anyone a star. As we've now seen, that is not true.

Good luck to them in the future though. Perhaps the new car, and a new way of thinking, will lead to brighter days.

Chris R

15th June 2011, 20:51

Interesting take on history but completely wrong.

Gurney's AAR team left CART when he lost his Toyota sponsorship.

I do not often agree with Bob - but he is completely right on this one.... CART pretty much gave Gurney the short end of the stick with the stock blocks and with his "1980" series Eagle and its successors - I cannot remember what the final bone of contention was - but basically they didn't like the no side-pod style of ground effects (he had a name for it)... and the rules evolved such that neither his engine of choice or car layout of choice was legal or competitive... that last Eagle before the hiatus was pretty much a March/Lola clone I think...... I believe this is all talked about in the book about Dan and his Eagles from a couple of years ago.... the title escapes me at the moment.....

Bob Riebe

15th June 2011, 21:23

The IRL (IMO) suffers from a "lost decade", where there either was no one to pass the torch to, or the wrong driver was given the torch (a bikini model who'd never won an auto race in her life at that point). But it's always been my belief that in order to be a someone, you have to beat a someone. I'm not convinced that Tony George (or his sycophants) understood that. They seemed to think that just racing at IMS could/would make anyone a star. As we've now seen, that is not true.

Good luck to them in the future though. Perhaps the new car, and a new way of thinking, will lead to brighter days.
Jag thank you the part I deleted, very informative.

I think, that neither USAC, nor CART nor the IRL had any idea that the cast of characters that carried the day was as irreplaceble, or that the replacements simply did not jive with anywhere near as large a audience as the Forys, Andrettis, Unsers etc.

Well before CART existed, magazines were writing about the lack of the next generation, or as one magazine called it the "missing generation" in Indy car racing.
I think if you add to the equation that for decades racers were pretty much racers, and places such as Daytona, Indianapolis and LeMans were mixing bowls where drivers from other series came to try their hand at the big prize from series they rarely competed in.
When THIS suddenly, within a decade, came to an abrupt halt, there was a vacuum and the organizers refused to accept that they did not need those other series or drivers from other series.

I think George had an idea of how important the short track local/regional heroes were to Indy, and to a smaller degree open wheel racing, but he had no idea that they were just one sum in a formula far more complex than any sanction wanted to admit.

Bob Riebe

15th June 2011, 21:25

The IRL (IMO) suffers from a "lost decade", where there either was no one to pass the torch to, or the wrong driver was given the torch (a bikini model who'd never won an auto race in her life at that point). But it's always been my belief that in order to be a someone, you have to beat a someone. I'm not convinced that Tony George (or his sycophants) understood that. They seemed to think that just racing at IMS could/would make anyone a star. As we've now seen, that is not true.

Good luck to them in the future though. Perhaps the new car, and a new way of thinking, will lead to brighter days.
Jag thank you the part I deleted, very informative.

I think, that neither USAC, nor CART nor the IRL had any idea that the cast of characters that carried the day was so irreplacable, or that the replacements simply did not jive with anywhere near as large a audience as the Foyt, Andretti, the Unsers etc.

Well before CART existed, magazines were writing about the lack of the next generation, or as one magazine called it the "missing generation" in Indy car racing.
I think if you add to the equation that for decades racers were pretty much racers, and places such as Daytona, Indianapolis and LeMans were mixing bowls where drivers from other series came to try their hand at the big prize from series they rarely competed in.
When THIS suddenly, within a decade, came to an abrupt halt, there was a vacuum and the organizers refused to accept that they did not need those other series or drivers from other series.

I think George had an idea of how important the short track local/regional heroes were to Indy, and to a smaller degree open wheel racing, but he had no idea that they were just one sum in a formula far more complex than any sanction wanted to admit.

BDunnell

15th June 2011, 23:12

Jag thank you the part I deleted, very informative.

I think, that neither USAC, nor CART nor the IRL had any idea that the cast of characters that carried the day was so irreplacable, or that the replacements simply did not jive with anywhere near as large a audience as the Foyt, Andretti, the Unsers etc.

Well before CART existed, magazines were writing about the lack of the next generation, or as one magazine called it the "missing generation" in Indy car racing.
I think if you add to the equation that for decades racers were pretty much racers, and places such as Daytona, Indianapolis and LeMans were mixing bowls where drivers from other series came to try their hand at the big prize from series they rarely competed in.
When THIS suddenly, within a decade, came to an abrupt halt, there was a vacuum and the organizers refused to accept that they did not need those other series or drivers from other series.

I think George had an idea of how important the short track local/regional heroes were to Indy, and to a smaller degree open wheel racing, but he had no idea that they were just one sum in a formula far more complex than any sanction wanted to admit.

All very interesting. I would just add that the end of the 'mixing bowl' period was a sad moment for motor racing in other formulae, too. I don't believe sportscar racing has ever been the same since. I suppose we have the increasing exclusivity relating to contractual matters to thank for this as much as anything.

DBell

16th June 2011, 01:22

Not really. It has only continued to exist. But it has not continued to grow from that low point... because 1996 did not represent the lowest point. The only recovery we've seen is in recent car counts at Indy (and some other events). But as measured by viewership and ratings, the Indy 500 is in a lower position today than it's been in any year, other than 2009 and 2010. 2010 is currently the record low for ratings and viewership. 2009 and 2011 represent the next two lowest rated Indy 500's in the television history of the race.

The ratings for the Indy 500 averaged 9.34 in the 1991-1995 period - with a low of 8.0 and a high of 10.9. In the 1996-2000 period, the ratings averaged 5.82 - with a low of 5.0 and a high of 7.1. In the 2001-2005 period, the average was 5.16 - with a low of 4.1 and a high of of 6.5. In the 2006-2010 period, the average was 4.28 - with a low of 3.6 and a high of 5.0. What we've seen is lower lows and lower highs in each succeeding five year period.

To be fair, the ratings for Indy have been in decline since the 1970's, as American's viewing choices and habits began to change. But never before was there this type of precipitous drop off in viewership.

Another spot on post Jag. I believe, though it's been a while since I've seen the numbers, that the 91-95 period was the high point of the ratings since they started showing the race live instead of tape delayed in prime time. Point being, that it was growing up to the point of the split. As your numbers show, since the split the ratings have been in long downward spiral. That is why I don't understand how people like Randy Bernard can say CART was losing fans when the ratings and attendance don't support that claim. If they are including the years of CART during the split, then that is skewing the facts to support their argument.

Bob Riebe

16th June 2011, 03:05

Another spot on post Jag. I believe, though it's been a while since I've seen the numbers, that the 91-95 period was the high point of the ratings since they started showing the race live instead of tape delayed in prime time. Point being, that it was growing up to the point of the split. As your numbers show, since the split the ratings have been in long downward spiral. That is why I don't understand how people like Randy Bernard can say CART was losing fans when the ratings and attendance don't support that claim. If they are including the years of CART during the split, then that is skewing the facts to support their argument.

Jag said also--
To be fair, the ratings for Indy have been in decline since the 1970's, as American's viewing choices and habits began to change. But never before was there this type of precipitous drop off in viewership.

The sudden drop appears to have been created with George's creation of CART II.

The Indianapolis 500 is not the same thing as CART so it is easy for CART to drop regardless of the 500, though is also dropped but especially in the new century.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JRqMhQdoIWc/SsKMbiAKTII/AAAAAAAAARI/Ws-VmUuAUIk/s400/indy_500_ratings_1996-2009.png

vintage

16th June 2011, 07:24

Alfa Fan

16th June 2011, 17:20

DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA DANICA

There's your answer.

Chris R

16th June 2011, 18:36

That graph was created by the author of "lying with graphs", as using 3 as the bottom line makes it look like 2006 is twice as much as 2009, when in fact it is only 25% more.

Why did the ratings go up so much in 2005? Be interesting to understand that.

t sure was, you can't start at "3" and present the whole picture!! they are NOT showing more data than they ARE showing!!!

Marbles

17th June 2011, 02:18

I'm a relative new comer to the situation, my first Indianapolis 500 was in 1967. I do, however, acknowledge there was a big drop in the mid 90's, but have you also noticed that it has continued to grow from that low point. Did you not find anything interesting or surprising in Robin's conversation with TG? How about Robin's comment that TG should have started the IRL in 1990?

Wow! 1967! I wish I could have seen what you saw. Respectfully, I can't respond to your question about TG forming the IRL in 1990. I haven't listened to the interview and have no interest in doing so and I'm fairly certain TG wouldn't have been any wiser when he was 5 years younger. Unless, of course, he bumped his head in the interim.

Jag_Warrior

17th June 2011, 22:08

Robin's question/statement that George should have started the IRL in 1990 suggests that he thinks that the problem(s) with the IRL was in the timing, not in the concept or the execution. IMO, the problem was primarily in the concept and/or the execution. I think my take is backed up by the fact that the series has never turned a profit and continues to struggle with viewership. If it were more about the timing of the formation, certainly by now (15 years on), it should have overcome the timing issue.

But like I said, we are where we are now - there's no going back. And it's going to take years of bringing an A Game in order to get the sport back to something respectable. Should Randy Bernard, or the others calling the shots, listen to anything that Tony George has to say going forward? IMO, no. His tack record is one of failure. No racing series should listen to him, just as no investor should listen to Bernie Madoff.

EagleEye

20th June 2011, 17:07

Jag said also--
To be fair, the ratings for Indy have been in decline since the 1970's, as American's viewing choices and habits began to change. But never before was there this type of precipitous drop off in viewership.

The sudden drop appears to have been created with George's creation of CART II.

The Indianapolis 500 is not the same thing as CART so it is easy for CART to drop regardless of the 500, though is also dropped but especially in the new century.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JRqMhQdoIWc/SsKMbiAKTII/AAAAAAAAARI/Ws-VmUuAUIk/s400/indy_500_ratings_1996-2009.png

How about posting the ratings from 1979-1995? You will find the ratings dropped from 8 and 9's AFTER TG created the IRL. How about ticket sales for the big race? In 1994, tickets for the 1995 Indy 500 were sold out the week after the 1994 Indy 500. In 1996, tickets for the 500 did not sell out at all. Look at the stands in Milwaukee in back in 1991, to anything today going back to 1994…

Not only did TG create the split by creating the IRL, he drove a stake through open wheel history by re-setting the history books to "zero" and started using only the IRL wins and stats, ignoring the years and years of CART, USAC, AAA and others that had been merged for years. He not only divided the fan base, but broke it up in to three or four camps; CART, IRL, NASCAR, or “other” for over ten years. Each year, the available fan base grew smaller and smaller. Just as baseball lost fans with their strike and cancelation of the season in the 90’s, open wheel racing lost fans, sponsors, TV packages thanks to the genius who was responsible.

You had CART, with four engine manufacturers, four chassis manufacturers and steady employment for an entire industry of dedicated engineers, fabricators, mechanics, who were paid for the entire year, with benefits to boot. They had new cars and engines every year, testing in late October and November at Phoenix, Sebring in their shiny carbon black. Sponsors were bidding to be part of the series and spectacle. This was all replaced by TG with horrible cars, horrible engines, and horrific safety record with second rate drivers and teams.

Not only did TG reduce the fan base but he decimated the racing industry in the Indianapolis area. It is sheer irresponsibility that he makes such delusional statements to the contrary.

Bob Riebe

20th June 2011, 17:39

[quote="EagleEye"]How about posting the ratings from 1979-1995? You will find the ratings dropped from 8 and 9's AFTER TG created the IRL.
If you can find them put them up, I looked.

Not only did TG create the split by creating the IRL,
The split was created by the creation of CART, and they way they treated the power that existed at Indy.
That is a simple fact so many want to ignore or hide.

You had CART, with four engine manufacturers, four chassis manufacturers and steady employment for an entire industry of dedicated engineers, fabricators, mechanics, who were paid for the entire year, with benefits to boot. They had new cars and engines every year, testing in late October and November at Phoenix, Sebring in their shiny carbon black.
Really, hmmm, where is CART?
IF they were so great they did not need Indianapolis. The Ilmore push-rod engine that drew so much attention was created for USAC, not CART.

George's "vision" was skewed, and poorly formed from the get-go. Had his old man not been murdered, I wonder how things would be, as he was a true racer.
Yes, he was his own worst enemy, but the fairy tale vision that CART was not in a trouble and that all would have been well had CART kept on being ***** unchecked-- well, as I said, where is CART?

nigelred5

20th June 2011, 18:59

I point squarely at the timing of the advent of the internet. It was essentially unknown in 1996. Now, there is an entire generation of people that know nothing other than video games, online chat, online gaming, social networking, streaming video, shows like Jackass (R.I.P.,RYAN DUNN, gonna miss ya bro..).

The only reason stick and ball sports persist on TV imho is because they are still ingrained in school and generally childhood. Kids still learn football, baseball, basketball, soccer in school.... Racing falls well outside of that sphere unless the family really immerses their kids in the sport, and that takes $$$. My son couldn't name you 5 drivers outside of Mario Andretti, Scott Pruett and Max Angelleli, all of whom he has met and maybe Nigel, because well, he asks why that's my screen name, and I"m ALWAYS watching racing. He can however name me 30 variants of the 1911 .45 cal because he plays video games. At least the kid has interests! I try to play racing games with him, he has no interest. Says they are boring. He doesn't enjoy just going for a ride in one of the cars. He has a very nice kart. He never wants to ride it. :(

Look around at hte age of a crowd at the next race you attend. It's generational and auto racing in general is on the losing side of a battle for attention I'm afraid.

EagleEye

20th June 2011, 22:50

If you can find them put them up, I looked.

They are out there but you choose not to include them.

The split was created by the creation of CART, and they way they treated the power that existed at Indy.
That is a simple fact so many want to ignore or hide.

100% wrong. CART was created in 1979, at the same time USAC sanctioned Indycar races. Both ran at Indy, under IMS rules. The first attempt to ban CART teams from Indy was thwarted in the courts in 1979. From 79-95, CART ran and dominated the Indy 500. The series grew. TG created the IRL, and created the 25/8 rule in an ill attempt to force them to his series. Then, he created a new engine/chassis package that effectively locked the CART teams out.

Really, hmmm, where is CART?
IF they were so great they did not need Indianapolis. The Ilmore push-rod engine that drew so much attention was created for USAC, not CART.

CART is alive and well and has been dominating the IRL/Indycar series since Ganassi first came over an won with JPM. Since then, every Indy 500 has gone to a CART team, including this year (Herta/Wheldon both came up via CART, with an engineer who won a CART championship).

The fact that Hemelgarn, Cheever, Byrd and Foyt (team, not driver) are Indy 500 winners in that time frame furthers the joke. Where are they today? Gone or back of the grid.

The Ilmor engine was created by a CART team, for the Indianapolis 500, and backed by a CART engine manufacturer (MB). Thanks for pointing that out!

The "vision" was flawed from the start because it was created by a flawed egotistical individual.

And Starter, please! Enough of the "I am going to close the thread" bs. The thread is about a discussion on a local Indy radio station, in which TG stated he did not create the split. The discussion that follows is based on TG's absurd statement of fiction.