The Frontstretch: Solving NASCAR’s Racetrack Problem, Part 1 – What NASCAR Can Learn From Baseball by Kurt Smith -- Friday March 13, 2009

Go to site navigation Go to article

Since we’re taking the week off from racing, I thought I’d sort of take the week off from talking about it. I’m going to talk about baseball instead.

But fear not my friends; it is relevant to NASCAR. It’s just going to take a little while to get there. Enjoy the ride with your Friday morning coffee.

To save you the trouble of reading my profile, I was a terminal Baltimore Orioles fan before I was a NASCAR fan. My dedication to the Birds came not from living in the Baltimore area my whole life, but from growing up in a family of Orioles fans. The Smiths lived in Towson, Maryland, just minutes away from the old Memorial Stadium, when I was far too young to understand the importance of relief pitching. When I was four we moved to South Jersey, bringing our love for that tough-looking but smiling bird swinging the bat with us.

Growing up as an Orioles fan in the Philadelphia area gave me a different perspective than most regarding the venues where baseball is played. I was able to compare. Dad took me to Phillies games at Veterans Stadium, which was still great—it was live baseball after all, and I’m an American—but that didn’t measure up to when he’d gather a group of us for a trip to Baltimore. Going to Memorial Stadium for an occasional Orioles game is my favorite memory of childhood.

Memorial was a far better setting for baseball than the Vet. They played on grass and you could see a suburban community beyond center field. It was prettier on the outside too—a brick facade embossed with a dedication to fallen World War II soldiers. This was as opposed to the dreary concrete bowl with no similar dedication in Philadelphia (although Veterans Stadium was named in honor of our military heroes as well).

One of the things that purists (a nice, non-derogatory term for “old farts” like me) despised in the evolution of baseball during the 1970s was the emergence of the “multipurpose” stadium—large gray monstrosities built near a city’s airport and designed to hold both baseball and football events, and most egregiously featuring playing surfaces of plastic carpet instead of natural grass.

Among the worst features of the concrete doughnuts was their uniformity—Pirates third baseman Richie Hebner once commented that he could stand at the plate in Philadelphia and not know whether he was in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis or Philly. I could add that if he didn’t notice big roofs, he could have been in Houston or Montreal too.

In those days baseball was in the process of modernizing in an economically friendly way—much like NASCAR is today—and the sport had forgotten that a big part of the charm of baseball was in its homes, places like Sportsman’s Park or Connie Mack Stadium…distinctive, asymmetrical, natural grass downtown ballparks that often both contributed to and reflected the character of a city.

Fortunately, people with unflagging determination, loud voices and passion about this very issue got involved in the designing of Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

When the majestic new Baltimore ballpark opened in 1992, it made such a huge splash that for years, teams and cities talked about wanting a new “Camden Yards-type facility” for professional baseball. Oriole Park completely obliterated the ongoing wisdom about what a modern baseball field should be. When fans attended a baseball game at the Yard, they remembered—or if they were too young to remember, they discovered—what was good and right about being present for a ballgame. As an Orioles fan, it even made it difficult for me to lament the loss of Memorial Stadium, although I still do.

After the dawn of Camden Yards, new and dazzling palaces of baseball began to spring up in cities across America—Cleveland, Arlington, Denver, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and so on until 2009 as two gorgeous new parks open in New York City. Nearly every ballpark in baseball now offers a charming experience unique to its location. Not only has the ballpark boom revitalized the sport, it has often boosted tourism and local economies in many of the cities where new ones were constructed. Baltimore and Cleveland are the best examples.

What made it all happen was what Camden Yards represented—it was an “old style” ballpark with “modern amenities”, like not having seats behind support pillars. Visually, Camden Yards brings to mind classic parks like Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. And it adds a few aesthetically striking features of its own, most notably the dominating B&O warehouse beyond right-center field. But Camden Yards also has better sightlines, more leg room, more concession stands and more rest rooms than Wrigley or Fenway.

Another feature that would surprise fans was the amount of seats—just 48,000 as opposed to over 60,000 in the cookie-cutters, leaving very few poor seats in the house. No one expected a team to ever do this, but it turned out to be a great way to fill up a place most every night and to leave fans wanting more—and as any Green Bay Packers fan can tell you, the more difficult it is to see an event live, the more people will appreciate it and renew their season tickets.

Without the signage, could you distinguish Las Vegas from Texas, Homestead or Kansas? NASCAR’s schedule today is dominated by garden-variety tracks with no standout features.

Baseball turned to the multipurpose concrete doughnut stadiums in the name of economics. But when the architects of Camden Yards sought to reverse the bottom-line oriented trend and rediscover the game’s heart, the subsequent economic return was enormous—far larger than the return from any dispassionate plan would have been. And the seemingly unstoppable and depressing trend towards characterless baseball venues was felled in one swoop. The rest of the cookie-cutters fell like dominoes in less than 15 years.

Camden Yards succeeded because it was conceived by people who thought like fans instead of accountants. Someone should hire them to be NASCAR advisers.

One of the bigger beefs longtime fans of NASCAR have today is the unimaginative size, shape, and location of too many of the current venues. Like the cookie-cutters that once dominated baseball, NASCAR’s schedule today is dominated by garden-variety tracks with no standout features. Little distinguishes Kansas Speedway from Chicagoland, Homestead, Las Vegas or Texas, especially when watching on television. Some newer tracks are to be applauded for the things that do improve the fan experience (like seats instead of benches), but they are clearly built with the same intention as the concrete doughnuts in baseball were—to attract as many fans as possible and to expend no energy on design or quirky originality.

Do fans at Bristol Motor Speedway care about the comfort level in their seat on race day? Hell no. They’d sit on damp concrete to witness a race in Thunder Valley. No matter what Lowe’s Motor Speedway does to improve the fan experience, it will never achieve Bristol status.

Profit concerns may simply have dictated that North Wilkesboro, Rockingham, or Darlington lose races. What has upset fans is that these classic, distinctive venues have been replaced by run of the mill and far less endearing speedways. To replace Darlington or North Wilkesboro with Texas or Fontana is to rip out a piece of a sport’s soul, just as replacing Forbes Field with Three Rivers Stadium was.

NASCAR still has a few classic venues that offer a unique fan experience and a unique racing challenge. Martinsville is one. Dover is another. Darlington will always be a favorite. These tracks should never be replaced unless they aren’t maintained, or if they draw poorly from year to year. Yet all three are occasionally spoken of as being in NASCAR’s sights for removal of races.

Economics doesn’t care about hearts. But hearts don’t care about economics either, and it works both ways…if a sport’s economic decision loses fans, it loses their economic value. NASCAR has lost sight of that in a big way. Tracks are given races based on balance sheet numbers only. It still doesn’t seem to have dawned on anyone at NASCAR that removing Labor Day from Darlington is a large part of the bottom-line mentality that has driven away thousands of fans. The one economic concern that should override absolutely everything else is keeping customers.

The real economics lay within the heart of the fan base. There is no need or reason to sell one or the other short, no matter how contradicting that may sound. Baseball has proven it. If NASCAR can’t stay at Rockingham, they could at least find or build a speedway that isn’t cut from the same worn-out mold.

And should Bruton Smith or the France family take such an opportunity to build a Camden Yards for motorsports, they could also rise above the taxpayer theft that many sports teams have pulled on their cities and build speedways with their own money. Smith has threatened to fund an entirely new racetrack himself in the past. That just might turn a few fed up taxpayers into NASCAR fans. Smith could do it. And he’s just the guy to do it.

So as we return to talking about NASCAR next week, before the circus returns to one its most fabled venues, The Official Columnist of NASCAR is going to provide a rough design for a new racetrack—an “old-style” track with “modern amenities”. Tune in to Happy Hour next week to read about the features of Kurt Smith Motor Speedway…and feel free to add any ideas of your own that I hadn’t thought of.

Kurt’s Dry Off-Week Shorts

  • Congrats to my namesake in the blue deuce, not just for his dominating win at Atlanta but for his new and original burnout. I’m all about the originality. Kurt said that the idea was hatched in a Miller Lite drinking session with his buddies…I see a Top Ten list coming out of that. Stay tuned.
  • A couple of folks took issue with my opinion in Mirror Driving about putting the leaders in the middle of the pack in a restart. I didn’t want to get drawn into an argument on what is now a two-day old column, so I’ll just explain once again and then you all can have at it: it is not a good idea to put a pack of not-so-fast cars in front of a pack of fast ones on a restart. In the middle of a race, it will soon trap cars a lap down (and in this case a long green run put many drivers as many as three laps down) and near the end of the race it can cause a big wreck. Yes, I have seen it happen.
  • No one loves Jeff Gordon more than I do, but I’m a little stressed that Dover is charging $99 for people to ask him questions, as reported in today’s newsletter. I remember going to a Mets game and not being allowed in the lower sections to take photos because it was reserved for “club members’. And at the time their big star was Ty Wigginton. Supply and demand I guess.
  • Regarding Bruton’s suggestion that the season finale be held at Atlanta instead of “some godforsaken area north of Cuba”, I can say that while I see the merits of the argument, Atlanta is going to have to perform better than it does at the box office. NASCAR gave them the Labor Day race for crying out loud. If that doesn’t help, then scrap the idea and keep the finale at Homestead.

DON’T LET THE FINAL WEEKEND OF SILLY SEASON PASS YOU BY!

The Frontstretch Newsletter’s got you covered all weekend long as Managing Editor Tom Bowles gives you all the latest news from Homestead. And if you don’t get the Newsletter… now’s your chance to sign up. It’s action-packed with the latest in breaking news, commentary, and driver features from your favorite writers … and it gets sent FREE right into your email inbox! Click here to jump on board with content you won’t see anywhere else on the site.

 

©2000 - 2008 Kurt Smith and Frontstetch.com. Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

 

Sally B
03/13/2009 07:31 AM
permalink

AMEN! No matter how many times drivers/media members ‘inform’ fans that each track has it’s own quirks and is thus NOT a ‘cookie cutter’, they fail to see things from a fan’s perspective. While what they say may be true, watching the races at these tracks tends to be identical from the stands. Little passing except during pit stops, long green flag runs that spread the field to the point you need a stopwatch to determine if a car is moving forward or not. All the expensive ‘neon garages’ won’t make up for tracks with little or no character.

Bill B
03/13/2009 09:28 AM
permalink

Good article Kurt. I think NASCAR could also learn from baseball in how they implement change in the sport. Baseball is very methodical and slow in making changes. The major changes NASCAR (Brian France) implemented in the last 5 years should have been implemented over a 15 to 20 year period.
BTW, I have lived in Baltimore all my life and was a huge Oriole fan until Peter Angelos took the team over. His unwillingness to invest more and build the team into a contender has made me not care anymore. The Orioles collapse every year after the All-Star break (if we are lucky).

Mike In NH
03/13/2009 09:45 AM
permalink

This, IMHO, is one of the best articles ever written on this site. Please, somebody, get this into the hands of SMI and ISC (and NASCAR).

Though that makes me realize one of the reasons for the cookie-cutter track phenomenon: unlike in baseball, where each team commissions its own stadium, there are only two groups – ISC and SMI – that commission all race tracks. With only two corporations – heartless entities in themselves – in charge of building speedways, it’ll be near impossible to convince them to build unique speedways.

Steve Cloyd
03/13/2009 09:50 AM
permalink

Excellent article. You could add a bit about the cookie cutter car too, now that they are all almost basically the same. The entire sport no longer has any soul or character, like it once did. Bland drivers, bland tracks, and bland cars do not lend themselves to a very successful future.

Max
03/13/2009 10:27 AM
permalink

I might point out that if Nascar (ISC) and Bruton Smith were smart, they would never build anymore 1.5 mile tracks and only build Richmond or Bristol type tracks.

This is where the best racing occurs, because the cars are less dependent on aero at those tracks. The shape of these cars do not lend themselves to larger tracks.

This is of course assuming they ever get to build anymore – my guess is that the expansion days of Nascar are long gone.

Now, they could get a wild hair and tear an existing one up and reconfigure…..nah, that makes too much sense.

dawg
03/13/2009 11:17 AM
permalink

Now you’ve gotten me to thinking about baseball. I grew up listening to Harry Carey on the radio. I used to stay up late listening to west coast, Cardinal games. Then about the second time the players went on strike. I thought “who needs these spoiled greedy millionaires? I haven’t watched, or listened to a game since. You just reminded me that the whole NA$CAR experience is feeling very similar.

chris
03/13/2009 11:34 AM
permalink

Now, I would be ecstatic as a TMS season ticket holder if they reconfigured Texas into a Richmond/Darlington-clone. Or, took some of the (lots of land) and built a Bristol or Martinsville clone and used that for Race #2.

That being said, I do like the racing at the 1.5m intermediates…and will freely admit I’m probably biased. I think that Texas, Charlotte and Atlanta are fine (racing wise) and having Vegas on the schedule provides benefit beyond the racing. The problems that I have are too-much-of-a-good-thing. Kansas, Chicago, and Fontana (I know, not a 1.5m intermediate, and a dead horse to boot) should be reconfigured into different things.

It doesn’t have to be Super Mario Kart, but we need more high-banked-short (ish) tracks. I’d drive to Iowa for a cup/truck weekend.

J. Meyer
03/13/2009 03:08 PM
permalink

All that and not ONE mention of Wrigley Field?! Oh the horror!
LOL Good job Kurt.
And Chris, if you DO come to Iowa, I got a room for ya!
-JM

Brian France Sucks
03/13/2009 03:13 PM
permalink

You ought to e-mail this to the France morons at I$C/NA$CAR. Not that they’ll listen. Best article on Frontstretch in a long time. The absolute truth.

AndrewFromTN
03/13/2009 04:58 PM
permalink

There is so much I could say here. But, I’ll limit myself to this:

1) I agree with nearly all of this article.

2) Isn’t it interesting that all of the remaining “independent” tracks on the cup circuit are unique. Dover is the “monster mile” with high-banked turns. Indianapolis is the only non-road course with four turns and four straightaways. And, Pocono is the most unique of the bunch, shaped like an asymmetric coat hanger with its three different corners and three different straights.

Now, some people don’t like the racing at Pocono and some even don’t like it at Indy. But, there is no mistaking these three tracks for any others!

Phil
03/13/2009 10:54 PM
permalink

Excellent analogy. The guy who builds a “new” North Wilksboro will strike gold.

thomas dalfonzo
03/13/2009 10:59 PM
permalink

There needs to be more tracks like Bristol on the NASCAR slate. If I wanted to build more speedways across America, they would all be clones of Bristol.

Speaking of Bristol, the only race the track should have is the final race. That’s right, the big NASCAR title fight should be at the Bristol Motor Speedway. I can tell you why in just five words:

SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST

I even e-mailed Bristol Motor Speedway letting them know that, Mr. Jeff Byrd, Bristol Motor Speedway general manager himself, in fact. He thanked me a lot for my generosity.

We need more Bristols in NASCAR today, end of story.

Doug Scholl
03/14/2009 12:03 AM
permalink

Great article. Growing up outside of Boston I remember taking the “T” into Kenmore Square up the hill grab a sausage sub on the corner at the Cask and Flagon and head on into the bleachers at Fenway. I was baseball spoiled, Wade Boggs and Jimmy Rice and the ever hated Yankees. But now I understand why I’d rather drive 6 1/2 hours to Phoenix than 2 1/2 hours to ACS. Thanks Kurt

Dave
03/14/2009 04:01 AM
permalink

You know if they build clones of bristol, richmond, darlington, etc… wouldn’t THEY also be cookie cutter tracks? The mold is already cast. Wether you copy charlotte, chicago, homestead… whatever, you’re still making a clone in a different market. There’s only so many ways to draw a circle folks! Keep the shapes the same, vary the banking. Oh wait that’s what they did…

mike
03/14/2009 03:58 PM
permalink

Awesome article!

I’m emailing it to everyone. And printing off dozens of copies to hand out.

don mei
03/14/2009 06:55 PM
permalink

By definition road courses offer variety. Anyone else out there remember Nascar at Bridgehampton?

George
03/15/2009 03:27 AM
permalink

How ‘bout a high-banked road course? I’d like to see some 35 degree S’s myself. I think if NASCAR had their own brand of road courses people wouldn’t mind ‘em as much.

Also, as many have already said, this article was thoughtful and well-put. You’ve articulated many of our sentiments clearly. Thanks.

FS_Kurt
03/15/2009 11:44 AM
permalink

Just wanted to thank all of you who took the time to comment. I do read the talkback and really appreciate the kind words. Thanks for reading.

Kevin in SoCal
03/16/2009 02:19 PM
permalink

George, Riverside was a high-banked road course, if I remember correctly. The last turn before the start-finish line, wasnt it?

Contact Kurt Smith