A recent report indicates Kentucky Speedway will get it's long-awaited Cup Series race, possibly as soon as 2011.
If that happens, and unless there is an expansion of the schedule, then another track is in danger of losing a race. Depending on which track that might be, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Mark Spoor and Bill Kimm each identify a track, regardless of corporate affiliation -- Kentucky Speedway is owned by Speedway Motorsports Inc. -- from which they say would be in NASCAR's best interest to eliminate a race.
Read their arguments and then weigh in with your thoughts in the comments below. Perhaps you have another track in mind. But if you happen to agree with either Mark or Bill, let it be known with a vote of support.
Mark Spoor says Fontana:
Whenever the subject comes up in our office -- and it does a lot -- my mind immediately goes to Fontana for a couple of reasons. First, I've covered races there -- even in the so-called "NASCAR Boom" era of the early 2000s, and there were always empty seats.
Now, before the e-mails start coming in, yes, I realize there are other venues around NASCAR that have had a hard time selling out, especially recently. In fact, I came very close to choosing Atlanta in my argument. There are cases to be made for almost every track on the circuit. However, there's one basic thing that puts Fontana at the top of my list.
Los Angeles is not a NASCAR town and I would venture to say that there's little that can happen to make it one. The buzz just isn't around the city during race weeks like it is in other places. NASCAR just isn't the main event of the week there, just another of many from which Southern Californians can choose.
Should Fontana have a race? Of course. The market alone dictates that. In fact, it's possible the track could be full with just one Cup race a year.
Why not Atlanta? It always has had a strong NASCAR fan base. There are things that could be done -- as in continuing to fix the traffic problems -- that could make you think that those seats will one day be full.
Despite the crew at Auto Club Speedway's best efforts -- and they have made many -- it's tough to imagine the same happening there.
Bill Kimm says Pocono:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no reason to go to Pocono Raceway twice a year.
The first problem for Pocono is the length. Turning 200 laps at the 2.5-mile triangle is preposterous. The race is too long and that leads to boredom for the fans. There are only three races that should be 500 miles in length: Daytona, Darlington and Charlotte. Everything else should be no more than 400 miles.
The length of the race leads to boring racing. Be honest, Pocono is just not very exciting. Sure, there have been moments of grandeur, but those are few and far between and rain has been responsible for some of them.
I don't have a problem with long, green-flag runs, but when there is no passing and cars just tick off laps -- that's where I get frustrated, and that's what Pocono offers.
And at Pocono, the leader checks out on the field. This past Sunday, if a driver was out front, it took just a few laps to build up a lead of 3 to 6 seconds. Who wants to watch that? Seven of the past 10 races have had margins of victory larger than 1 second, with five of those larger than 2 seconds. Yawn.
And then there's the schedule. Two visits to the Tricky Triangle in six weeks is ridiculous. But, due to weather, that's exactly how it has to be. Well, that problem can be eliminated by giving one of Pocono's events to Kentucky, Kansas or Las Vegas.
One visit to Long Pond, Pa., is plenty for one season.
👎
)
