The Frontstretch: Putting A Stop to Start-and-Parks Requires Help, Not Punishment by Amy Henderson -- Thursday September 29, 2011

Go to site navigation Go to article

Putting A Stop to Start-and-Parks Requires Help, Not Punishment

Holding A Pretty Wheel · Amy Henderson · Thursday September 29, 2011

 

It can’t go on like this.

Something must be done.

It’s ruining our sport.

These are some of the things being said around the garage and in the grandstands about a practice that has popped up in NASCAR in the past few seasons: starting the race and parking the car early, claiming some phantom issue, and collecting the prize money for a finish that is usually somewhere between 35th and 43rd place. The so-called start-and-park teams come to the racetrack with no intention of racing for the entire event; they buy only enough tires to practice, qualify, and start the race on, with maybe one more change. (Want to know who’s not planning on going the distance? Take a stroll down pit road before the race and count tires. Start-and-park teams typically have a new set and a set of scuffed practice tires in their pit, while other teams have in the ballpark of eight to ten sets.) They don’t bring a full pit crew, just a driver, crew chief and a couple of guys to work on the car.

And everywhere they go, the ridicule follows: What a disgrace. They’re stinking up the show. It’s ruining our sport.

OK, reality check. What these teams are doing isn’t an ideal advertisement for NASCAR, but it’s hardly ruining the sport.

As for stinking up the show, really? They’re usually gone too fast to cause any problems for the race leaders. And while it’s been suggested to reduce fields to 36 if so many teams are only going to drop out early, does it really matter that much if they start the race and the field is later reduced to 35 by their attrition? There is an argument that start-and-park teams can take a spot in the field from a team that plans to run the distance, and while it’s a legitimate complaint on a week-to-week basis (Steve Park went home at Loudon last week, for example), it’s really not a big issue in the course of a season. Full-time teams are protected by the rule that locks in the top 35 in owner points.

Though efforts such as Steve Park’s have been derailed by start-and-park entries, full-time race teams are not losing their spots in the Cup field to race teams unable to go the distance.

There are not start-and-park teams locked in over teams planning to run a full race every single week. They don’t send full-time teams home, period. On occasion, they do send home a car running a partial schedule and hoping to go the distance, but it’s rare. Other than that, it’s hard to buy the “stinking up the show” argument because they cause little trouble on track and are gone early, totally inconsequential to the race except perhaps for buying a point or two for a frontrunner by cushioning the blow of an early exit.

There have been plenty of suggested solutions to the perceived problem, from prorating money won for the number of laps completed to monetary fines to actually suspending teams who park early. The first has a lot of support, but it’s ill-thought-out. For one thing, what about a team who everybody knows planned to run the whole race but had engine trouble or got wrecked? Under the rule, that team would receive a prorated purse as well, as would any team that ran all day and simply finished a lap or more down. It would have to be applied across all of these teams, and that would be grossly unfair. But the bottom line is that not all the start-and-park teams are the same, and the solution isn’t in penalties at all. Like so much else in NASCAR, it’s in money.

There are two types of teams parking their cars early. One group, luckily the minority, uses starting and parking as their business model. They don’t intend to race full races, sponsored or not. These teams do lack respect for the sport and the fans, and these are the ones most people think of when they hear the words “start and park.” And if these were the only teams doing it, perhaps penalties would be justified. But they aren’t the only ones, and penalizing them would also mean penalizing other teams who are just trying to make it in a dog-eat-dog world.

The majority of the start-and-park teams do it for a simple reason: they want to race, and if they park early, at least they got on the track. If they could afford to race every race, they would, no questions asked. When they have funding, they do race. Joe Nemechek is among these owners. So is Robby Gordon, and he and Nemechek are both winners on the Cup circuit. Nemechek and Gordon are racers, and it kills them not to race, but most weeks for their teams and several others, that’s just not in the cards. They hope that by showing up every week, perhaps a potential sponsor will notice something-great practice laps, a good qualifying effort, a good run while they’re out there-and that they will find the funding to race. In the meantime, they’re getting a little track time and learning something for next time, in case they have more money when they come back.

An example of this is Tommy Baldwin’s No. 36 team, who parked most weeks for two years. Having secured sponsorship from Golden Corral to run at Talladega earlier this year, the team put together a great effort and driver Dave Blaney ran at the front enough for Golden Corral to take notice. They stepped up with money for more races and the team is moving forward. That’s what all these teams are hoping for. They don’t enjoy parking. They don’t do it to beat traffic home. Casey Mears, who has had to park on weeks when Geico doesn’t sponsor the No. 13, said that having to pull into the garage before the end of the race is the hardest thing he’s ever had to do. Teams like these deserve respect, not ridicule.

In a nutshell, if you’re at the track every week, you have a fighting chance to be noticed by a sponsor. If you’re not there at all, you have no chance. That’s the reality these teams face.

But something must be done about them! This much is true, but what needs to be done isn’t imposing some kind of penalty. These teams are penalized every week by the economics of the sport.

The solution to start-and-park teams won’t be found in the rule book or the penalty logs. Instead, it lies in a concerted effort to help these teams find funding. It’s a reality that NASCAR funnels money away from race teams when they add an official sponsor of the sport. While that’s a short term gain for the company, it’s a long term loss if they can’t fill fields and otherwise maintain the overall health of the sport. A comprehensive program where NASCAR would help potential sponsors enter the sport and funnel money to the teams who need it most would only improve the sport overall by making the racing more competitive and more compelling to watch.

Franchising has long been the dirtiest f-word in the sport, but perhaps it’s a possible solution. By moving teams from independent businesses to a collective group under the sport’s umbrella, rules like spending caps and revenue sharing could come into play. Spending caps would almost surely bring new sponsors to the sport, as those priced out of the sport under the current model could come back and be competitive. It’s possible that franchising could, in the long run, revitalize the sport.

There are no perfect solutions, but starting and parking is also not nearly the problem some would make it out to be. These teams rarely affect the qualifying of the field or the race results. Most of the teams doing it are doing it because it’s all they can do, in hopes of attracting a sponsor’s attention, or in the case of the drivers, a better ride. While there are a few parking with no intent to change that, they’re the minority, and penalties couldn’t be applied fairly. The solution to start-and-park teams isn’t in punishment, it’s in finding ways to help them through the difficult economic environment that is today’s NASCAR.

Sometimes, the best solution is the hardest one, especially when the real problem is much deeper that it appears on the surface. The real problem lies in the economics of the sport, not in the teams doing what they can to remain a part of it. Penalties would do nothing but punish people who don’t deserve to be punished. A real solution, much harder to come by, would put an end to it because there would no longer be a need. And if there was no need, the entire sport would be better off.

Contact Amy Henderson

NEW YEAR? NEW NEWSLETTER. LOOKING FOR THE INFO YOU NEED ABOUT NASCAR IN 2013 – SENT RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL INBOX?
Well, you’ve come to the right place. The Frontstretch Newsletter gives you more of the daily news, commentary, and racing features from your favorite writers you know and love. Don’t waste another minute – click here to sign up and get all the information you need. We’re here to make sure you stay informed … so make sure you jump on for the ride!

 

©2000 - 2008 Amy Henderson and Frontstetch.com. Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

johnboy60
09/30/2011 07:09 AM
permalink

Oh Amy, Start and parkers DO indeed stink up the show, just not in your mind. Nice try at attempting to put a “good-guy” spin on them though.

Matt L
09/30/2011 07:44 AM
permalink

Franchising is a bad idea, just another similarity to other sports. NASCAR has to have the appeal for companies like Havoline or Kodak that left the sport. Long term sponsors like Cheerios and UPS are leaving this season. Companies are not getting a ROI with sponsorship. That’s a bigger problem than S&Ps.

JJ
09/30/2011 11:27 AM
permalink

The easiest way to stop the park and starters is to NOT make it worth their while e.g. no credit for starting a race unless you complete X number of laps (say 50 or so). Only pay out prize money to the top 35 finishers, everybody else gets their entry fee back.

No incentives and maybe people will actually race.

mrclause
09/30/2011 11:33 AM
permalink

Amy, you hit this “perceived” problem on the head in so many way’s. There have always been underfunded teams in NASCAR. Lack of funding is the only real issue. Excepting the Parson’s team, given funding the rest would be more competitive. These teams are the racer types this sport was built on, like Childress, Scott, and others. They build cars within the rules, they qualify under the rules, they spend what they have.

A lot of this “perceived” problem has it’s roots from NASCAR itself and their greed and stripping sponsor $ from the teams. The mega teams haven’t helped either. It all comes down to money and it’s availability. Speed is money.

Do I like to see teams show up with no intent to actually race, NO! Do I like to see the Baldwins, the Nemecheks,the Gordons, try to stay in this sport? Darn right I do! They are doing what they have earned the right to do, each is a former winner. What we don’t need is wanna bee’s like Phil Parsons. How do you separate them? Well maybe like they did with Morgan Shepard, he jumped out and tried to pit his own car and NASCAR stopped him although to be fair, he was actually trying to continue. A simple rule such as requiring a full pit crew and a minimum number of tires like 3 full sets should take care of those that have no intention of actually racing.
I fully agree with your calling it a “perceived” problem. The media, especially the internet, have made this molehill into Mt. Kilimanjaro. It’s totally a non-issue.

Russ
09/30/2011 12:26 PM
permalink

TOP 35! Thats the problem. Somewhat in agreement with the article. HOWEVER, the blame is with NASCAR! They have over the years encouraged the practice when they needed to fill a field. Anyone who thinks this is a recent issue hasn’t been following the sport very long.
You need look no further than the Top 35 rule to find the cause of the problem. The guarentee that those cars make the field regardless, Killed any viable new entries into the sport. No company is going to allocate the millions that it will cost to take a chance on making the field. AND,now that the mega teams insatiable need for money grows, they are grabbing the smaller sponsors who may have been able to do a sponsorship for a small program.
So dont beat up the start and parks, look at Nascar and its alliance with the megateams.

wcfan
09/30/2011 03:59 PM
permalink

Amy
Let me become your co-worker and then I will come in sit on my A$$ all day while you are working and at the end of the week we both are paid equally.

This should not bother you because I thought about getting up and earning my keep, but just decided to Start and Park (SIT AND COLLECT).

Mike S.
09/30/2011 04:01 PM
permalink

TV coverage could also help S&P’ers get sponsors. Right now, the only way an S&P car gets on TV is if he blows a tire early on, or when he gets lapped by the leaders. Other than that, they don’t even rate a mention. Maybe if the TV cameras could show these guys for a bit early in the race, a potential sponsor might think his money would be well spent. Otherwise, why invest money in something that has no chance of returning anything?

DoninAjax
09/30/2011 05:58 PM
permalink

Brian has been ruining our sport since he took over and came up with his brilliant ideas.

Steve Cos
10/01/2011 03:19 AM
permalink

The number one problem with S&P’s is caused by NASCAR. When your dying for sponsorship and NASCAR kicks out the ones that want to spend the money to protect the Sprint name thats where you blame. AT&T, Verizon, and Motorola (Robby Gordon had a deal with them) all wanted to stay in the sport. Sunoco complains that the shell logo was too big? Seriously? In this day and age you would think they would ease up and get these companies back into the sport. Then there would be more money for the smaller teams

JT
10/01/2011 10:13 AM
permalink

My idea is to give the S&P group more incentive to race. Have a separate “plan group” for independent teams that pays something like a $25,000 bonus for the highest independent finisher, and maybe $15,000 for the next highest.

Doug in Washington (State)
10/02/2011 01:42 AM
permalink

The S&P teams don’t take spots from full-time teams?

Lets see- the #38 is full-time, and has attempted to complete every race. How many races have they missed? How many S&P cars made the race? The #71 and #32 also both missed races this season, intending to go the distance. Both are full-time.

One argument is “well, they just weren’t fast enough”. In many cases, they were NOT the slowest cars. In fact cars slower than they were made the race, due to the Top-35 rule.

S&P teams don’t need engines that last, they don’t need setups that can race an entire race. The cars can be optimized solely for a qualifying run.

Yet they make nearly as much as the teams the run the whole race. A team that goes 394 of 400 laps, finishing 34th, makes a whopping $175 more than a team that packed it in 45 laps in and finished 35th.

Where’s the incentive to go the distance?

Prorating the prize money isn’t going to hurt the team who finished even 10 laps down. Yes, they’d make a little less money, but the team that packed it in early would make a lot less.

Sorry, a team getting paid nearly as much for running 10-20% of a race vs running nearly or the entire race, makes no sense.

FFWU
10/03/2011 12:29 PM
permalink

Joe Nemechek is poised to cash a check that will take him over the $3 Million dollar mark. The “P & S” crowd actually serve a purpose. Without them the “Full Field” requirement in the TV contract would kick in and the TV guys would pay less money if less than a full field takes the green.

 

Contact Amy Henderson

Recent articles from Amy Henderson:

Earnhardt Ganassi Racing Announces Partnership with Cessna, Textron
Fans To Decide Format of Sprint Unlimited at Daytona
UNOH and Kentucky Speedway Extend Sponsorship Agreement
Earnhardt Out For Charlotte and Kansas After Talldega Concussion
Piquet, Jr. Wins K&N East Opener

Want to know more about Amy or see an archive of all of her articles? Check out her bio page for more information.