Daytona as the Superbowl of NASCAR

Article

A friend sent me the link to this article on ESPN.com. I'll be honest, I'm not familiar with this particular writer. I would hope that working for ESPN he has some cred when it comes to covering NASCAR, but he writes like a guy who doesn't understand the sport, so who knows.

First, I agree with him that the "Superbowl" tag given to the Daytona 500 is not well suited to this event. It is like the Superbowl of football (the only real Superbowl) in being the most watched event of the season and having the most hype surrounding it. But what makes the Superbowl the Superbowl is that a champion is crowned when it's over. I think the reason that it continues to be called the Superbowl in the context of NASCAR is that to the drivers, winning this race is a bigger deal than winning any other race - and for some maybe even a bigger deal than winning the season championship.

Now, here's what he got wrong:

1. He complains on and on about restrictor plate racing. Let's remember, there's a reason they use them at Daytona and Talladega - 210 mph in a stock car isn't safe. That's how fast Bill Elliot qualified one year for the 500 prior to the institution of the plates. You can bet that they'd be much faster now if they took them off. With the poor, poor handling of the current cars even at 190 mph and the inability of Goodyear to build a tire that lasts more than 10 laps that would be a very dangerous situation (removing the plates). Restrictor plate racing isn't the problem and probably isn't going anywhere. If you don't like it, watch Indy Car (there's an exciting sport! - that's sarcasm people).

2. His whole diatribe about 500 winners not predicting the season champion shows his complete lack of understanding of this sport. There's no single race that is predictive of the eventual Cup Champion - not even the last race of the year where the champion is crowned. Part of the beauty of NASCAR is that every week there are probably 30 cars that could conceivably win the race (at a plate track maybe a few more than that even). Compare that to Indy Car or F1 where there are less than 5 unless those 5 all blow an engine. That is why NASCAR is such a popular spectator sport in the US - the outcome isn't known before the race and every week someone new may emerge to win (that's why it's more than cars going fast in a circle to fans).

3. To slight Newman in 2008 or Harvick in 2007 for winning is poor. Both men have won races previously. Harvick has been a perennial chase contender. You're entitled to your opinion about the way the 2007 race ended and I do feel badly for Mark Martin, a deserving driver, but let's remember, the rule in NASCAR is that the field isn't frozen until the yellow is thrown. In this instance, the accident happened behind the leaders coming out of the last corner. To end the race a half-mile early made no sense and letting it go posed no threat to anyone. Let's not forget, it hasn't been all that long ago since they were allowed to race back to the start-finish line when the caution came out.

4. I agree that they called the race very quickly after the rains came, but on a track that size drying it in high humidity (which is a given in Florida) after it's been soaked takes hours. How is it more respectful of fans to ask them to chill for 3-4 hours so they can race into the night? That was a tough call, but unless you had the information NASCAR did when they made their decision, you might want to tone it down a notch.

Look I'm as frustrated with this year's 500 as anybody, but this guy doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about and is pointing his criticism in the wrong directions.