I understand the significance/history of the Daytona 500 and the history of Indy - but should the Brickyard 400 be considered one of the "Crown Jewels" of NASCAR Cup racing?
updated by @ernest-sutton: 12/05/16 04:02:07PM
I understand the significance/history of the Daytona 500 and the history of Indy - but should the Brickyard 400 be considered one of the "Crown Jewels" of NASCAR Cup racing?
I was thinking the same thing, PK, regarding NASCAR's biggest (historically speaking) races (Daytona 500, Southern 500, World 600, Talladega 500). I know the Southern 500 is the granddaddy, Daytona 500 born in '59, Talladega approx.10 years later, but I don't remember the date of the first World 600.
I absolutely agree with your opinion of that track in Fontana and I believe NASCAR's moving the Labor Day Southern 500 away from Darlington is one of the very worst mistakes they have ever made. I also understand that money talks and BS walks............and NASCAR's efforts to expand itself into other market areas, but there were numerous choices other than killing such a time-honored tradition. I also believe that NASCAR's decisions to run races on Fontana-style tracks (snoozers)has contributed to the declining attendance and declining TV ratings (along with all the other things we have discussed in the past). But, alas, those opinions seem to fall on deaf ears at NASCAR headquarters.
Regarding the Indy tire debacle of 2008, that was probably the absolute worst NASCAR race I have ever witnessed..........and those fans who paid for tickets to that one should have been given free tickets to another Cup race, but I suppose Goodyear took most of the blame for that one.
I've rambled here more than I intended to - but my thinking when I asked the question was that, while I won't argue with the decision to run the stockers at Indy, I believe it should take more than a pocket full of money to classify a race as one of the crown jewels of the sport.