The Name Game

A little earlier today I commented on one of PK's discussions about Indy. I still call the short track in Clermont, Indianapolis Raceway park (IRP). Randy Myers commented that it is now called Lucas Oil Raceway, which I knew. Hear's the discussion. Back when I went there, it was IRP. A couple of years ago, the name was changed to ORP or O'Reilly Raceway Park when the auto part supplier bought naming rights. Now, the Lucas family, which has done a lot for motorsports, has aquired the naming rights.

This leads me to the point we have argued before. When you buy naming rights for either an event or facility, why do you have the automatic right to change history and re-name everything in honor of that particular company.

In my opinion, when Jonny Mantz won the first Southern 500, he did not win the Showtime Southern 500. When Joe Lee Johnson won the first World 600, he did not win the Coca-Cola 600. When Iwent to Indy, it was Indianapolis Raceway Park, and not Lucas Oil Raceway. What part of political correctness says we have to change history in honor ofany sponsor. To be sure they are kept happy because of footing the bill, for ease of identification, or as in NASCAR or any sport, monkey-see, monkey-do.

I also think it is mainly done because the instant gratification generation would have too much trouble trying to identify with the past in anything, much less racing history.

What do you think?

updated by @nb-arnold: 12/05/16 04:02:07PM

Amen Mr. Arnold!!! I totally agree with your statements and am very happy you took time to post those statements here.


--
What a change! It's been awhile since I've checked in and I'm quite surprised. It may take me awhile to figure it our but first look it's really great.

I tend to agree N.B. Lowes is a home improvement store not a race track. It was CMS before Lowes, CMS during Lowes paying the bills and CMS after Lowes.

Agree, 100%, NB. When I used to have to prepare Media Guides, I tried diligently to use the correct as used at the time of the actual event and series name and find the correct car owners. Winston was infamous for having bad information in their press materials after they stopped using Gene Granger for research. Of course a lot of their material made it sound like stock car racing was invented in 1972. Had a kinda row in the Richmond press box one night with Ty Norris of RJR/Winston when I collected all of the Winston media guideinfo that had been prepared by Len Thatcher and threw it away. It was just plain wrong. I substituted my own. Winston stuff always had Ned Jarrett, for instance winning at Richmond in the Capital City 300 of September 1963 driving a Bondy Long Ford. WRONG... Winston info was full of wrong stuff like that. Ned, as he personally confirmed to me when I prepared the Richmond track media guide, was driving a Charles Robinson-owned 1963 Ford for that race... the famous Burton-Robinson Construction Company sponsorship that Jim Pardue carried on his '64 Plymouths. After that, Winston said that I was difficult to get along with in the press box. They were right. If your stuff is wrong, I don't want it passed out. Keep up your campaign, NB. That Coke 400 that used to be a Pepsi 400 was still a Firecracker 400 the first time I listened to it.


--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

Hey, I have a huge issue with this...especially in the Cups series... the guys that won Winston Cup Championships are Winston Cup Champs to me...not Sprint Cup Champions. This retro-active naming rights thing gets really confusing when the name is applied to something that took place before that company even existed.


--
Founder/Creator - RacersReunion®

...and another pet peeve of mine is the "Nationwide Series". The only identity this series has now is that of the sponsor. Think about that for a minute. I know we all used to call it the Busch Series when it had the Grand National identity, but that's no reason to take away the series own identity.


--
Founder/Creator - RacersReunion®

I know what you mean there Dave. When you are in pr, your reputation is based on your facts. If you lose your credibilty, then your promotions are just fodder and no one takes them seriously. Gene Granger was the best in facts, having lived a lot of them. Greg Fielden also put a lot of effort and time into being correct. And then Bob Latford had a ton of info. Too bad that now most of that is lost.

I don't have a problem with the Coke 400 being the Coke 400, but the previous years are still the Pepsi 400 and Firecracker 400. This creates an interesting situation for those brands and those trying to kiss their (family site).

I know when we did the Goodwrench press kits back in 91 and 92, wehad to research some of the names and dates to be sure we were correct. I wonder how many of the pr reps of today would, or could do that. Back to the age-old philosophy of it's not a problem if we don't acknowledge it.

Yep.... and, it was Winston Cup Grand National Series, then just Winston Cup Series as the GN nomenclature was appropriated for the former Sportsman, Late Model Sportsman, Budweiser, Busch Grand National Series, Busch Series Grand National, then just plain Busch Series before it became Nationwide. I guess Grand National is back to National Velvet stuff these days. They can call it Sprint or Nextel or whatever, but today's announcers will NEVER equal Ray Melton describing the Grand National drivers of NASCAR in their cars carrying all the colors of the rainbow from the country towns and crossroad stands....clap your hands and stomp your feet as they pass in review!!!


--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

yes to all you say.


--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

Was a good thing Annie B wasn't still living to crackKW over the head!


--
"Any Day is Good for Stock Car Racing"

This has been a great discussion. As always PK and Dave add a lot of color to the posts.

Remember the first thing you learn in statistics class is that you can make a stat read how ever you want it to. As muchin theNASCAR way of thinking, it's not what you say but what you don't say that can be interpreted.