[mitchntx]

After watching a some of the coverage of the Daytona 500 this weekend and hearing a lot of discussion about the costs associated with feilding a competitive team and hearing the gnashing of teeth surrounding the dwindling sponsorships and hearing the concerns about enough cars to field a full grid and seeing Waltrip's wild tumble and seeing that tumble re-played on network after network after network ....

I began to wonder ....

Because it's all about the number of minutes a specific sponsor get's it's name on TV, when will a driver, who is an "also ran", purposely wreck his car, just get gleen a few extra minutes of sponsor coverage?

Is it cost effective to spend a $100,000 race car in order to keep a $10 million sponsor?

NAPA received tons of exposure from networks to local TV stations replaying his wreck. I would hate to see that happen on purpose, but ... it has to be there in someone's mind ...

[rpoz-29]

FWIW, I can remember when the "Grand National" (pre Winston/Nextel/cup)
cars ran the old short track in Richmond in the early, to mid 70's. Some of those guys were towing on open trailers, behind a cube van. Despite the pit crew altercations, the racing itself was pretty clean. If you ever catch one of the old races on speed channel, watch it. I can only assume they had so much of their own money in the cars, they couldn't afford to tear them up. A lot of drivers had sponsorship from the local dealership. When the privateers quit having a chance, and when NASCAR wants "Soccer Moms" in the stands instead of enthusiasts, it was all I needed. Money is their God. And wait until the end of the season and the teams with no chance of a championship quit running to cut their own costs. I still prefer an amateur road race to any pro series.