"More drivers on equal footing." Insert me looking wistful here.
Another gem from the USA Today story: "There's been plenty of upward mobility this season in NASCAR's premier series, where having the deepest pockets no longer equates with the loftiest results."
More manly tears of envy from me.
Meanwhile, over here in the open-wheel racing Balkans, we always have the twisties to look forward where there's at least a chance that someone other than the Big Two wins. (Witness the general euphoria when Justin Wilson won at Watkins Glen.)
Rush out and buy today's USA Today (I subscribe!). Or, if you must, read about how "N-triguing" is the new N-word HERE.
Keep in mind that I only sort of follow Nascar through a blog or two, and some articles in papers here and there. That being said, the reasoning behind that article overlooks glaring facts: Wrecks happen and often ruin championship runs (Helio who even with a win at St Pete had he been there would still be the farthest out of contention amongst the top four cars) which has nothing to do with whether or not a team has money; Dale Earnhardt Jr. is overrated, and frankly not that good so counting his car as one of those well funded efforts that isn't making the grade is BS; look no farther than Michael Waltrip to see how small funded teams are actually doing. Counting Stewarts "startup" team as one of the "small" teams is also BS. To say that because there are seven teams in the top 12 spots somehow signifies an end to money based domination over looks the fact that the four biggest teams still occupy a huge chunk of the points. Just sayin'.
In other news: Your boy done good this weekend, I'll give credit where credit is due and that outside pass on Justin Wilson was pretty fucking amazing and ballsy.
Posted by: The American Mutt | July 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM
trust me, its not, I watch Nword and it's no more equalthen Indy cars, it's just more races, so it looks more.
Posted by: dylan | July 14, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Skewed/misleading stats there. It's true that there are "different" guys who are looking Chase-eligible (Montoya, Kahne, whoever else), but when you're just talking about the top-12 in points (i.e. the top third of the field), that isn't the same as saying that there are 12 guys who look like they could legitimately win the championship. That'd be like saying "Dan Wheldon is looking good in the top-7!" in IndyCar-ese. Having a good season? Yes. Going to win the championship? Absolutely not.
Get this: Hendrick or de facto Hendrick cars (that includes Stewart and Keselowski, since they're both driving Hendrick-engined and -chassis'd cars) have won 10 of 19 races this season. Gibbs has won 4 of the remaining 9. Roush has won 2 of the remaining 5. That means that only 3 races out of 19 have been won by a true "outsider", aka 16%, or just more than the percentage of "outsider" wins in IndyCar (1 out of 10, Our Boy J-Dub at The Glen).
Are there more winners in NASCAR? Sure, but that's because they've got double the number of drivers and double the number of races. At mid-season, 11 out of 36 (full-time) drivers have won races in NASCAR, or 31%. Just past mid-season, 5 out of 20-ish drivers have won races in IndyCar, or 25%. Those numbers aren't all that different. One more winner in IndyCar or one less winner in NASCAR, and it'd be basically identical.
Sorry for the statistics book there. All's I'm saying is that there's almost always something less substantial behind the smoke and mirrors when it comes to NASCAR. Don't believe the hype.
Posted by: The Speedgeek | July 14, 2009 at 01:15 PM