I've stated it multiple times! Even Paff is smart enough to figure it out.Originally Posted by crsfulk
Indy Car is not exciting enough.
That is the core issue. That is the problem!
Do you agree? Can I make it any more clear then that?
I've stated it multiple times! Even Paff is smart enough to figure it out.
Indy Car is not exciting enough.
That is the core issue. That is the problem!
Do you agree? Can I make it any more clear then that?
"Try some of these before or after your statements if you are not presenting them as facts. Things like - "In my opinion", or "I think that", JHMO, IMHO, IMO, JMO... Your opinions are not (necessarily) fact. That would clear things up some." - Seadog 03/25/2010 11:40am So the above is JMO.
I agree the drivers are a huge part of it but not the core issue. Fixing the drivers without fixing the core problem doesn't fix anything which is what Paff wants. Fixing the product first and then filling it with interesting drivers is lightning in a bottle.
Again, you harp on the obvious, but did not answer the question. You stated your core issue, but what part of that has not been addressed? Everyone agrees that the car is a problem, the engine is a problem and the rules need to be defined to allow for "better racing", but what has RB not addressed? You seem to be asking for immediate fixes that require time and planning. You are writing the new car and basically the series off as a whole when you have not even seen the changes fully implimented for 2012.
I'm not harping on the obvious. It wasn't obvious to you, you are talking about trying to fix the weather and replacing Molsons.
Do you agree or disagree that Indy Car is not exciting enough and that is the underlying issue?
What is so hard in answering that question?
The question in regards to the theory that it's not exciting enough then is how do you make it more exciting?
Some cried that there had to be equality amongst all the drivers in order to make it exciting. So we got a single engine & chassis manufacturer to keep it all even. That wasn't the answer. Some thought that it needed to be all-or-mostly ovals. The IRL was all-ovals through 2003 and attendance and ratings were going down every year...that wasn't the answer. Some also thought that using the dirt-trackers as a first choice in driver selection was the way to go. That apparently wasn't the answer either.
So will multiple engines make it more exciting? Perhaps, especially if the engines are competitive and we see one grenade more than once every 4-5 years. But what if one of the engines is light years ahead of the rest?,..will that still make it exciting?? Will multiple aero-kits give enough of a differing appearance to make it more exciting? Again, what if one is light years ahead of the other?
Some complain that Penske & Ganassi out-spend everyone else and that makes it un-exciting. Is it fair then to penalize the best of the best for being the best? Is it fair that a shoe-string budget team with part-time employees with a no-name driver be able to run with Penske/Ganassi who hire the best from the driver down to the guy who washes the shop floors??
Would having more driver rivalries make it more exciting?,..especially amongst the front-runners?? Would more rubbing, bumping & wrecking make it more exciting (taking away actual driver skill in passing a car like they do in the stock-car series)?? Where do the drivers that will make it more exciting race now? 6-different drivers have won this year, how many more need to win to make it more exciting? Or does having 5-other Americans or more winning make it more exciting??
There's currently 21 teams that have raced this season. How many more are needed to make it more exciting? Out of those teams there's been 4-different teams win races so far this season. How many more need to win in order to make it more exciting & unpredictable?
How do you make it more exciting without someone crying it's not fair, it's not the right cars, engines, drivers, race tracks or sponsors? Not being a smart-azz, serious question. I don't know myself. I prefer having multiple engines, chassis and an international cast of drivers racing on a variety of circuits.
Does the continued bad economy have any impact at all on attendance?,..especially the tracks residing in the rust-belt portion of the country? Would having more ovals make it more exciting and see a noticeable increase in attendance?" Why is it then that the ovals races seem to be the lowest attended & watched on television? By not supporting the series now (not going to races, not watching on TV) due to one or any of the other reasons above, will that make it better and give us more of what we want??
Not trying to be a smart-azz. Just asking questions in regards to what we have now as to what we need to make it more exciting.
My first Indy 500 was 1973, haven't missed one since 1981. To date I have attended 35 Indy 500's, and probably 100 or so other IndyCar races (CART & IRL).
You may be correct.
All of the problems--low attendance, low TV ratings, loss of good racing venues because they lose money, little to no interest among the TV networks in televising Indycar, too many low-talent ride buyers, et cetera--can be traced to a single, obvious cause: There are not enough Indycar fans, plain and simple.
The question is: why? It could very well be that the product is not consistently exciting enough to attract fans. I tried to recruit some fans among my best friends and had them over to watch some races, and those races were parades and my friends say they don't understand why I follow Indycar. Honestly, I'm on the verge of no longer following Indycar, because the races are not consistently exciting. For every good one, there is a snooze-fest. My time is too valuable to gamble on wasting it 50% of the time.
Personally, I think gonzo is on to something.
The drivers that were winning the races and championships were the American drivers:
Al Unser Jr
Michael Andretti
Bobby Rahal
Danny Sullivan
Rick Mears
PRECISELY!!!!
Ya, so why can't four American drivers battling for the championship and winning races solve the problem. Why does it have to be a field of 85% Americans?
So what's your ideas on making it more exciting? Is it related to anything below? Again not being a smart-azz, curious to know what I may be over-looking.
I hit on the big items that have changed or are in the process of changing for the upcoming year. You went to specific items and I responded to your request, thus the weather and Molson. You counter with "Indycar is not exciting", but offer no solutions as has been asked of you by myself and others.
You still have not answered the FIRST question as to what items that have been issues in the current and past have NOT been addressed by RB? I beieve the only one that no one can answer is BB.
Do you want me to address all these or are you just being rhetoric?
Ignore all the what if's and what you think has been done and what hasn't been done.
What would need to happen in the series for you to spend thousands of dollars to fly up and attend Toronto? I'm presuming you don't now because you either can't afford to do so or it isn't worth the expense. Assuming you could afford to do so, is the series exciting enough for you to make the trip? Never mind if you have or haven't done it before. We can substitute Japan or Australia if you want to be difficult about it. There was a point in time in my life where all I wanted to do was have the spare time and money to follow the Indy Car caravan from race to race. I couldn't be any further from that fantasy now if I tried. What would need to be done to make it worth it for you?
Does spending more adverts in Racer mag make it more interesting to me? No it doesn't. Does filling up stands in Phoneix make it more interesting for me? No it doesn't. Does having more engine manufactures in the series make it more exciting for me? No it doesn't.
Does having two drivers that I find interest in fighting it out at 260 miles per hour where one wrong move could result in death, in cars I could only dream of, well, that is starting to get interesting for me now.....
See where I am going.
What is it for you indyracefan? What wold make it exciting or interesting enough that you would spend money to fly to Japan and watch a race?
Gonzo, I want to fix both.. I want 2000-2002 IRL type action on the ovals with talented Americans in the cockpits
How is the addressing the rule book going to allow for better racing? Is it suddenly going to allow passing at Baltimore, Mid Ohio, and Sonoma?
Beat it crs. You are only interesting in running around in circles arguing about being right or wrong. Until you answer the question I have asked, there is no point in continuing, all you are doing is dancing the dance in an attempt to try and be right about something.
You do? Hey don't let me tell you what to like or dislike, but was that more popular then 1993 when foreign drivers were winning and street and road courses also made up part of the schedule? Hardly! All oval racing with American drivers already exists. It's called NASCAR. All racing on street and road courses already exists, its called F1. What doesn't exist is the marriage of those two disciplines operated at the same level!
But if you want all oval racing with Americans, knock yourself out. What's to talk about???
Ahhh, what did you ask? You have avoided my question from the very beginning.
How is having the fields be international with drivers that have zero use for ovals and Indycar's history in general help Indycar?
That would be a pretty good deal. How do you make that happen?
91 -- Buddy Lazier -- Delta Faucet Hemelgarn Racing -- Reynard/Ford
I concede there will be road racing on the schedule in future years (i dont think its needed at all but I agree the series will be a road racing series with some ovals mixed in for the near future like it is today)
Cars, engines and rules. Those are the three things other than the track, which the drivers liked, and the drivers that will allow for better racing. At this point, you have a solid group of drivers in the series. There are some at the bottom that need to be upgraded, but probably the best overall group in atleast 15 years.
Your answer for improving the racing?
It's exciting enough for me right now. I attend several races every year (usually 3-4) and have since the late 1980's.
I have a standing invitation to stay in Toronto if I ever make it up there. What prevents me from driving or flying up?!,...too much work and not enough future planning and of course cost. If cost weren't an issue I would attend every race right now. I'm not the one that needs convinced to attend races.
I'm looking forward to multiple engines, as mentioned earlier there's a tinge of excitement for me in not knowing whether an engine will hold together the whole race. I also look forward to multiple aero-kits. I would prefer a couple more oval tracks such as Michigan, Milwaukee, etc.
Post #34!
Do you agree or disagree that Indy Car is not exciting enough and that is the underlying issue?
I don't think it does.
Is there no such thing as balance? Was Emmo bad for the series? Was Mansell bad for the series?
They did more for the series then Mike Groff or Jeff Ward!
No you are right, you aren't the one that needs convincing. All the people that didn't attend Milwaukee are the ones that need convincing.
So what do you think will get their butts in the seats?
Me? I think a wickedly fast car for starters will. Not a new car, not different cars, not a pretty car, not a cost effective car, a wickedly fast car!!!! Do you? If not, what then?
That is just for starters.
Yes and No. There have been a few races that were tough to watch, but overall I have enjoyed 75-80% of the races. No, I do not feel that is the underlying issue.
There your question is answered, now answer mine.
Yes and no! That isn't an answer. I didn't ask if they were exciting enough for you to enjoy the races, I asked if you thought they were exciting enough to attract fans. Do you want to be right or do you want to have a discussion? If you want to be right, then be right and quit posting and go away. If you want to have a discussion, then just answer the bloody question without dancing around.
We are talking about why fans aren't attending and why fans aren't watching. Do you agree that the underlying issue surrounding that is that the series isn't exciting enough? Do you still say no?
Check your post, you asked MY opinion and I stated that there were a few that were tough, but enjoyed most of them. The underlying issue IN MY OPINION, is that most of the races are exciting and enjoyable. The series failed the teams/drivers/sponsors/fans by first the split and then on a larger scale by sitting back thinking that the world will be beating down thier door to come to races like they did with the 500 and the series became irrelavant by lack of marketing and innovation.
It is not about right or wrong, it is about what is going on in the series. I initially stated all of the areas that have shown improvement and you came back with a general "it is not exciting". I asked you to share your "core issues" and which of them have not been addressed by RB and you came back with "it is not exciting". I get that you feel that it is not exciting, but what should the series do to make it exciting? Speed? yes, but that is limited by the lawyers and insurance companies. What else?
You are focusing on symptomatic issues instead of addressing the underlying problem.
If you want to disagree on what the core problem is that is fine, I am happy to debate it.
You think it is exciting enough. Fine. There are sub 1.0 television ratings and empty grandstands to say that there is something preventing fans from watching. What gives fans a reason to watch? Why does anybody watch Survivor? Why does anybody watch the NFL? Why does anybody watch Two And A Half Men?
There is a reason why fans aren't watching Indy Car racing. I don't think you understand why that is. I think you think everything is fine and that all the series needs to do is throw marketing dollars at it to fix things.
You clearly think it is exciting enough. Do you think it is exciting enough for the rest of the world to enjoy?
Enough with the fricking blabber...
You STILL have not even started to answer the FIRST question. You talk in more circles that a kid with a Spirograph. Are you afraid to answer a question with something other than a question?
One more time...
What items that have been issues in the current and past have NOT been addressed by RB?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks