PJ, I’m not suggesting that your efforts to get the points system changed are “wrong.” I’m only suggesting that it’s not going to happen. In terms of the ratings being in decline, that’s not entirely accurate. They’ve fluctuated right along with the ratings for other forms of motorsports.
The one thing that I don’t think has been mentioned yet is television itself, and how it’s changed. We can never forget that we’re no longer a nation of three stations – CBS, NBC and ABC. Our viewing choices now number in the hundreds, and that’s resulted in almost every program’s overall ratings being somewhat below what they once were. Again using generalities, a sponsor who was once “satisfied” with his show pulling in an audience of 12 million may have resigned himself to being satisfied with an audience of 9 million. Look at some of the shows that are considered “hits” today and then compare their numbers. Shows that pull 2 million viewers are touted as major successes these days.
True, 600,000 viewers isn’t what we’d like it to be for an NHRA telecast, but it’s better than 400,000 – or 300,000.
There are often seemingly radical ideas suggested to the NHRA (such as the “Pro Stock Saturday” concept), that are almost always summarily rejected. One – just ONE -- of the problems with any radical idea suggested to the NHRA is that it comes from outside the confines of 2035 Financial Way. The company has traditionally been unresponsive to radical new approaches that come from “outsiders.” That may not be right, but it is true.
There is also a lot of truth to the aging of the NHRA fan, and NHRA is consciously aware of and very concerned about it. Without going into the whole thing again, that’s one of the reasons NHRA got involved in Sport Compact racing. They were hoping to attract more 20-somethings to the “regular” NHRA national event shows.
Jim Gunther mentions a grass roots oriented outreach program, but things like that cost money and take time and unfortunately, in trying financial times NHRA isn’t likely to make an investment like that without being able to spot absolutely, measurable results, and quickly. Some racers have done an excellent job of selling the sport at the high school and jr. high school levels for years, largely through efforts back by their sponsors. All the way from the days he was backed by Slick 50 and up through his years with Snap-on Tools and WyoTech, Steve Johnson has worked non-stop to promote drag racing to school age youngsters. It could actually be said that Steve devoted so much time and effort to those programs than his racing suffered for it. And what does Steve have to show for all of that? Has he ever received so much as an “attaboy” from NHRA management? I kind of doubt it.
Sorry, John Panuzzo, but I personally reject your slower-car-gets-lane-choice concept as being just one more idea that, if instituted, would only end up confusing the fans. For example, how many fans understand, and does NHRA ever make any effort to explain, why there are only 12 cars listed as “qualifiers” on Friday night?
Rob McCabe is right. God save us if Paul Page or Mike Dunn starts spouting off like DW does on the Cup telecasts with that “Boogity, boogity” garbage. Talk about talking “down” to your audience. That and that stupid “Digger” have helped convince discerning viewers that the NASCAR fan truly is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. One wonders if that might be at least a small reason ratings are down over there. Please. Don’t start ranting back, but do you honestly think an intelligent race viewer is interested in seeing a cartoon about Digger? The guy turned in to see a race, not a Saturday morning cartoon show!
You can forget seeing Pro Mods on the telecast. They’re considered “exhibition” vehicles and nothing more, and NHRA doesn’t even give the sponsor the courtesy of having those cars participate in the winners circle, nor do they include the results in the sheets handed out to the media. Appear on the telecasts? Not happening.
In the last few years I have been asked at least three times by someone from NHRA why the drivers are so often smiling, laughing and hugging one another at the top end rather than reacting as real rivals. I’ve suggested the laughing and hugging is probably a result of the fact that they’re just happy they survived another 300 mph run as much as anything else.
Rivalries absolutely help build television interest. What, pray tell, is professional wrestling all about if it’s not rivalries, manufactured or not? I’m not suggesting drag racing go that far, but as others have said, Whit Bazemore was great for our sport because of his willingness to speak his mind. Now no one does for fear of offending a sponsor or team owner or who knows who else. And while we recognize that “National Dragster” and nhra.com are house organs whose job it is to promote every positive about NHRA Drag Racing, it’s unlikely that the reporters who work for those outlets would write accurately and completely about a rivalry, and I’m not complaining about that. That’s the nature of those jobs.
Let me cite a somewhat related scenario. Years ago, when Kenny Bernstein unveiled the butt-ugly Batmobile Buick at the pre-Winternationals deal at Firebird, the announcer said words to the effect that “This doesn’t look like any Buick I ever saw.” An NHRA official charged into the announcing deck and said, “We cant have you talking about our World Champion like that.” Left unsaid was “And God forbid you offend Budweiser, too.” So, what do you think the odds are of NHRA itself reporting the gritty truth about a nasty rivalry?
What is wrong with things like the inimitable statement of Richard Tharp’s when he said, “Shirley Muldowney? I’d like to punch her in the moth!” It generated excitement and interest.
I have heard dozens of racers, in private conversations with me, go “off” on some other driver – but they will not say that stuff in public or in front of the fans for fear of the ramifications, and like it or not, NHRA does not help in this area. If a driver suddenly becomes too outspoken he’s liable to be fined for his actions. Case in point, Larry Morgan about Brainerd some years ago. He voiced an OPINION that the track was unsafe. He did not make a factual statement that it wasn’t safe, i.e., he didn’t say, “There’s a pot hole five feet wide and a foot deep in the left lane at 800 feet, so the track is dangerous.” They fined him five grand for that simply voicing his opinion of the track. Think Larry’s likely to say anything else?
What our telecasts need is the pit reporter sticking his microphone in some driver’s face prior to the final round and asking, “What do you think your chances are against Driver X?”
“I’m gonna kick his ass. He’s kind of a jerk, although you guys never report that, and our team is better in every way. He’s toast!”
I’ll still be waiting for that one 20 years from now.
Jon Asher
The one thing that I don’t think has been mentioned yet is television itself, and how it’s changed. We can never forget that we’re no longer a nation of three stations – CBS, NBC and ABC. Our viewing choices now number in the hundreds, and that’s resulted in almost every program’s overall ratings being somewhat below what they once were. Again using generalities, a sponsor who was once “satisfied” with his show pulling in an audience of 12 million may have resigned himself to being satisfied with an audience of 9 million. Look at some of the shows that are considered “hits” today and then compare their numbers. Shows that pull 2 million viewers are touted as major successes these days.
True, 600,000 viewers isn’t what we’d like it to be for an NHRA telecast, but it’s better than 400,000 – or 300,000.
There are often seemingly radical ideas suggested to the NHRA (such as the “Pro Stock Saturday” concept), that are almost always summarily rejected. One – just ONE -- of the problems with any radical idea suggested to the NHRA is that it comes from outside the confines of 2035 Financial Way. The company has traditionally been unresponsive to radical new approaches that come from “outsiders.” That may not be right, but it is true.
There is also a lot of truth to the aging of the NHRA fan, and NHRA is consciously aware of and very concerned about it. Without going into the whole thing again, that’s one of the reasons NHRA got involved in Sport Compact racing. They were hoping to attract more 20-somethings to the “regular” NHRA national event shows.
Jim Gunther mentions a grass roots oriented outreach program, but things like that cost money and take time and unfortunately, in trying financial times NHRA isn’t likely to make an investment like that without being able to spot absolutely, measurable results, and quickly. Some racers have done an excellent job of selling the sport at the high school and jr. high school levels for years, largely through efforts back by their sponsors. All the way from the days he was backed by Slick 50 and up through his years with Snap-on Tools and WyoTech, Steve Johnson has worked non-stop to promote drag racing to school age youngsters. It could actually be said that Steve devoted so much time and effort to those programs than his racing suffered for it. And what does Steve have to show for all of that? Has he ever received so much as an “attaboy” from NHRA management? I kind of doubt it.
Sorry, John Panuzzo, but I personally reject your slower-car-gets-lane-choice concept as being just one more idea that, if instituted, would only end up confusing the fans. For example, how many fans understand, and does NHRA ever make any effort to explain, why there are only 12 cars listed as “qualifiers” on Friday night?
Rob McCabe is right. God save us if Paul Page or Mike Dunn starts spouting off like DW does on the Cup telecasts with that “Boogity, boogity” garbage. Talk about talking “down” to your audience. That and that stupid “Digger” have helped convince discerning viewers that the NASCAR fan truly is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. One wonders if that might be at least a small reason ratings are down over there. Please. Don’t start ranting back, but do you honestly think an intelligent race viewer is interested in seeing a cartoon about Digger? The guy turned in to see a race, not a Saturday morning cartoon show!
You can forget seeing Pro Mods on the telecast. They’re considered “exhibition” vehicles and nothing more, and NHRA doesn’t even give the sponsor the courtesy of having those cars participate in the winners circle, nor do they include the results in the sheets handed out to the media. Appear on the telecasts? Not happening.
In the last few years I have been asked at least three times by someone from NHRA why the drivers are so often smiling, laughing and hugging one another at the top end rather than reacting as real rivals. I’ve suggested the laughing and hugging is probably a result of the fact that they’re just happy they survived another 300 mph run as much as anything else.
Rivalries absolutely help build television interest. What, pray tell, is professional wrestling all about if it’s not rivalries, manufactured or not? I’m not suggesting drag racing go that far, but as others have said, Whit Bazemore was great for our sport because of his willingness to speak his mind. Now no one does for fear of offending a sponsor or team owner or who knows who else. And while we recognize that “National Dragster” and nhra.com are house organs whose job it is to promote every positive about NHRA Drag Racing, it’s unlikely that the reporters who work for those outlets would write accurately and completely about a rivalry, and I’m not complaining about that. That’s the nature of those jobs.
Let me cite a somewhat related scenario. Years ago, when Kenny Bernstein unveiled the butt-ugly Batmobile Buick at the pre-Winternationals deal at Firebird, the announcer said words to the effect that “This doesn’t look like any Buick I ever saw.” An NHRA official charged into the announcing deck and said, “We cant have you talking about our World Champion like that.” Left unsaid was “And God forbid you offend Budweiser, too.” So, what do you think the odds are of NHRA itself reporting the gritty truth about a nasty rivalry?
What is wrong with things like the inimitable statement of Richard Tharp’s when he said, “Shirley Muldowney? I’d like to punch her in the moth!” It generated excitement and interest.
I have heard dozens of racers, in private conversations with me, go “off” on some other driver – but they will not say that stuff in public or in front of the fans for fear of the ramifications, and like it or not, NHRA does not help in this area. If a driver suddenly becomes too outspoken he’s liable to be fined for his actions. Case in point, Larry Morgan about Brainerd some years ago. He voiced an OPINION that the track was unsafe. He did not make a factual statement that it wasn’t safe, i.e., he didn’t say, “There’s a pot hole five feet wide and a foot deep in the left lane at 800 feet, so the track is dangerous.” They fined him five grand for that simply voicing his opinion of the track. Think Larry’s likely to say anything else?
What our telecasts need is the pit reporter sticking his microphone in some driver’s face prior to the final round and asking, “What do you think your chances are against Driver X?”
“I’m gonna kick his ass. He’s kind of a jerk, although you guys never report that, and our team is better in every way. He’s toast!”
I’ll still be waiting for that one 20 years from now.
Jon Asher
