October 13th, 2008 
Journo I’m not really sure where the rumor du jour originated this weekend, and frankly it doesn’t matter, but this idea that NASCAR might be making the starting fields in every series smaller does not make a whole lot of sense.
This rumor emerged Monday on Yahoo Sports, with writer Bob Margolis saying it was, “another sign of the times.” Would someone mind explaining to me how making the starting fields for races smaller is a “sign of the times?” The argument I believe Mr. Margolis is trying to make is that somehow the present poor economic situation would somehow justify making the fields smaller. I’m not really sure how that would be the case.
If anything, I would argue it would hurt the teams, the sponsors and ultimately the sport. Sponsors are going to be much less inclined to pour millions of dollars into a team if the odds of their driver making the field are severely decreased. Likewise, this would add strength to and likely increase the size of mega-teams competing under one common umbrella. Because the opportunity to get into races would be decreased, teams would be forced to align themselves with more successful organizations or face getting freight trained.
Fans would flee when their favorite driver is either not making races, or forced to leave the sport and the backlash from team owners would be unprecedented.
As far as the present reality, why when you consistently have 45-48 cars trying to make the field, would you tell not just one or two guys to go home, but 10 (Margolis says that NASCAR would cut the field to 36)? Not to mention the other series’. In the brief, Margolis writes that NASCAR would decrease the truck series field from 36 to 28 and the Nationwide field from 43 to 28. So this means the elimination of at least a couple dozen cars. While the truck series does have trouble filling the field, they don’t have that much trouble. And often, the Nationwide Series has too many cars.
As we have talked about here many times, you can not believe every rumor you hear in the garage area or on the shop floor. The people who work in this sport love nothing more than a good piece of gossip and they are always willing to pass it on. I’m not sure what about this particular item made Mr. Margolis think it had some validity, but let’s just say, I’ll believe when I see it.
Now it’s time for you to sound off. What do you think about the size of the field? Too big, too small, just right? Do you believe the rumor? Let us know.
Posted in 
Tags: 
I’d rather let them all run. Eliminate the top 35 rule and just line them all up by qualifying speed. If 45 come, then 45 start. Wasn’t there something like 75 at the first race at one of the superspeedways?
If they did that, but set the purse for 44th and below at something like $1,000, it wouldn’t cost the tracks to much more money.
They would also need to double up on pits for the bottom qualifiers but we could eliminate all this go or go home stuff.
If the sport is “racing” then let the fastest cars race, not the “old champions” who should be watching instead of driving, and the slow teams who cant run more than 10 laps. Our sport is and has been “smelling” for sometime. Time to “clean-up” the sport, not continue to “stink it up.”
Bob Margolis is an idiot. I have reaad several of his blogs, He has written articals saying NASCAR needs to put a tarp on the race track when it rains, much like the NFL does on a fooball feild. Could you see NASCAR trying to tarp Martinsville. This is just another stupid though this guy has, ignore him smaller feilds will never happen. I have no idea why Scene Daily keeps him.
they all need to qualify on speed not owner points if you dont make the top 43 you go home no matter were your at in the points. and in that case there should be a point system for makeing the race if qualifying is rained out do it on saturday they did that for years any one remember second round qualifying. can you see jr gordon jj or mark martin geting loose and not making the race. qualifying would be so more intresting
Ok, let’s get real here. There is NO WAY NASCAR can let every one who shows up at the track race. That would lead to many more deaths and serious injuries because you would have guys that have no more business driving a race car than the man on the moon racing in the Cup races every week end! All he would have to have is enough money to buy a race car.
But shrinking the field does not make since either. Sure maybe a small adjustment one way or the other would be fine. But the size of the field is one of the few things in NASCAR that actually WORKS. If we are going to change something there are MANY other stupid out dated rules that they could spend there time working on. Qualifying being top of the list. I do believe in protecting the regular teams place in the field, but I hardly consider a team that can’t do any better than 35th in points a regular team. Maybe the top 25 in points could be guaranteed a starting position. That would mean almost half the field would be go or go homers. That would be interesting. And YES teams should get points for qualifying well. It just makes good since. But who am I any way…….Just a fan. See you in Martinsville………GO 24!
Journo,
I think NASCAR should widen the fields rather than shrink them. If 46 teams show up, and they all qualify within an established margin of the leader, then let them all run. What that margin would be, I don’t know. Although I have no interest in most of the teams which fail to make the field, I think it’s a disservice to the team and their sponsors to send them home if they miss qualifying by a few thousandths of a mile. Of course we don’t want a slow team to cause problems for the rest of the field, so that margin should be small.
Sponsorship is difficult to get in good times, and it must be especially difficult for a marginal team. Why discourage a marginal sponsor or a small team? From little acorns, big oaks grow, but they have to have a chance to take root.
West Coast Kenny
Alameda, California
With all due respect and without necessarily weighing in on the validity of Margolis’s rumor, I’m afraid I disagree with your thesis — at least insofar as you argue that contraction would hurt sponsors and the sport.
If, as Marty Smith has written, fully half the field (by which I assume he means ‘more than 20 cars’) is, as yet, without funding for 2009, then it’s inconceivable to me what sponsors would be hurt by smaller fields. And while I fundamentally agree that contraction could lead to even greater dominance by the super teams, I’m not entirely sure I think contraction hurts the sport; smaller fields would necessarily result in stronger entries up and down the grid and, in theory, lead to more competitive racing. And while I’m not a huge fan of the megateams taking over, even I have to admit that a 36-car field populated by cars from Hendrick, RCR, RFR, JGR and whoever else is much more likely to outperform a field that includes backmarkers like Carl Long or cars from teams like BDR or MWR (offense not really intended).
In addition, and again, while acknowledging my own personal dislike of the possibility, I’m just not sure it can be argued that losing the seven, uh, least good teams and drivers would otherwise damage NASCAR’s fan base. Frankly, I think the sport has many other more pressing concerns/issues more likely to turn off fans than the prospect of depriving underperformers of track time. I like Dave Blaney as much as the next guy, but if he’s not in the field, will NASCAR’s fans revolt?
If you want to tell me that I’m high and that taking this action would just be another example of NASCAR crapping on a vestige of the sport that made it great — the little guy, hauling his gear to the track, making the race and finishing in the top 10 or some such — that’s fine. I’ll even agree to an extent. However, that horse left the barn a long time ago, and present economic reality is that NASCAR could be seriously hurting for sponsorship dollars in the coming years and laggard teams will have even that much more trouble staying competitive. Fields have been larger and smaller throughout history. The current meltdown and struggles up and down the garage would seem to make contraction not only a realistic possibility, but a quite necessary move as well.
West Coast Kenny that’s a good thought. What’s the problem with having 48 car fileds everywhere except maybe martinsville and Bristol? NA$CAR wanted to “create brand” or at least thought they were where in the last few years they sent 6-10 cars home per race. That’s crap. No brand created there just sending cars home, some of which have good sponsors. Ever heard of Tobasco? They left because they were missing races. And don’t tell me to work harder to get in. Tell me do the Wood brothers think this is all fair in love and war. They were THE team to beat for two decades and part of two others. They are a Prince of a family. Making them go home or any other hard working team go home serves no purpose. It does however create “brand” for NA$CAR–a sanctioning body we all know has the best interest of the competitor at heart.
You are on to something West Coast Kenny.
This sounds like the first step to franchising to me. There will only be 36 teams.
If there is any substance to this story than it would give a clear picture as to which direction na$car is headed. I have felt for some time that na$car is morphing into a F-1 type series with a few mega teams running each week. I hope I’m wrong, but judging from the decisions made in the last few years, it would come as no surprise. My question is, “what will they do when all their present fans desert them?” In these economic times it will be hard to hang on to what die hard fans they have left. Thanks for listening
I don’t think they should change it. The Top 43 cars right now are already hurting some teams because they travel to the track and don’t make the race. Why hurt more teams who are trying to help your sport?
I kind of agree with Stewart… let every one who shows up race. It’s not like 75 COT’s are gonna show up in this day and age. People don’t have that kind of money to fix the cars to NASCAR’s rules and likings.
If they let anyone that shows up race, how will they deal with only 43 pit stalls and a fixed number of stalls in the garage at many of the tracks?
Skippy – I think the issue with having less cars in the field in terms of sponsorship, is it gives less companies the opportunity to be involved. There are some sponsors that can’t afford $25 mil a year to sponsor Carl Edwards or Tony Stewart. But they can afford a sponsorship for a lot less at Robby Gordon’s place, Hall of Fame Racing, etc. You dimish the the number of opportunities for companies to be involved, and you shrink the number of people who are out there looking for these sponsorships. The same concept applies to the Truck and Nationwide Series.
David M & Others – The one thing some of you are forgetting in terms of letting everyone race is the minimum speed rule NASCAR has. If the cars aren’t fast enough to be safe in traffic, NASCAR won’t let them race. I’m not saying I’m advocating letting everyone race, but that is something to consider.
The entire premise of shrinking fields because of the economic times doesn’t make any sense because shrinking fields doesn’t help anyone. Less teams can race, less sponsors can be involved, and NASCAR will collect less entry fees. Nobody is forcing teams to show up to have full 43 car fields. In tough economic times, the smaller teams NEED to be able to make races to earn the prize money and keep their own sponsors happy. Taking away chances for them to qualify would only put more teams out of business.