I caught about a grand total of 40 laps of Sunday's Cup race, like the first 25 and the last 15. Admittedly, the race, from what little I saw, was much more competitive than the race at Charlotte a week ago, I will also admit that I jumped with glee and shouted louder than I have at a NASCAR event in a few years when I saw that number 20 sliding up the banking with five to go.  You all know I can't tolerate those Toyotas and it is a close race between Matt Kenseth and Carl Edwards as to which one I dislike the most.  It was also satisfying to me to see Coach Joe turn his back from the camera when the event happened.  Probably an effort to maintain his "goody two-shoes" image rather than display the profanity most likely spouting from his mouth.

Funny thing about the Kenseth spin is that when he is on the receiving end, even though he clearly blocked Logano more than once, forcing Joey to scrape the wall at least twice, he blames Joey for wrecking him. Had the shoe been on the other foot, as was the case with Kenseth and Gordon at Bristol a couple of years ago, it's just "close racing" according to Matt.  When he's dumped, a whole different story, but then again what do we expect from that bunch?  Let's just say the sight of a Toyota having problems is the highlight of any race I watch, and even more so when it's Kenseth or Edwards!

Now back to the oval office discussion. As I watched the short portion of the Kansas race, I realized that racing on a true oval, the type track where stock car racing was literally born, is becoming less and less relevant.  When stock car racing started, most tracks were oval-shaped, although there were a couple almost a perfect circle and a couple of road courses.  Darlington, even though referred to as "egg-shaped” is still an oval track.

Big Bill France came along in 1959 with a track, which he deemed a "tri-oval" because of the sort of one triangular point in front of the stands. Then came Charlotte with the "quad-oval" because they messed up the front straight by cutting it into three short chute straights.  The reasoning behind that, according to a quote from the Curtis Turner book "Timber on the Moon", was to allow better viewing by all seated in the grandstands.  I can't pass up this opportunity to comment that there aren't enough people seated in those grandstands these days to warrant such a design, but then for years that track produced some great racing.

So, now, these days we have tri-ovals, quad-ovals, road courses, tricky tri-angles (Pocono) and true ovals on which the employee in his cubical pursues his Christmas bonus. I didn't mention the "her cubicle" because the possibility of that one "her" getting a Christmas bonus  is about as likely as Santa wrecking his sleigh on my new roof this Christmas.  The small minority of race tracks on which the Cup series runs are oval tracks.  Even the short track at Richmond wasn't satisfied to remain an oval.

I have pondered the reasoning behind why the "cookie-cutter" track mentality assumes the quad-oval such as they have at Charlotte is the design of choice. Big Bad Bruton ruined Atlanta, in my opinion when he took away the half-mile long turns and quarter-mile straits to make it a Charlotte clone. Then there is Texas Speedway.  In my opinion, that track has been a disaster looking for a place to happen since the day it was opened.  Didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.

Obviously, the cookie-cutter mile and a half track is the bane for NASCAR these days. Obviously, the Charlotte race a week ago clearly indicated such a track is not that made for good racing with the current "Gen-6" cars.  Everything you heard from the drivers at Charlotte was "you can't pass" which was obvious with not one single green flag pass for the lead.  I have been sick and tired of hearing about "dirty-air" since that term came into existence as applied to racing.  I can understand the applicability of that term for the air around Los Angeles, California, but when applied to racing, or the poor attempt being made to present the current state of affairs on the track as racing, I'm sick of it.

Just read NASCAR's statement that the new rules for 2016 are designed to have cars creating less "down-force", thereby resolving some of these dirty-air no passing issues. I truly hope that is the case.  I am not knowledgeable enough to understand all the discussion regarding down force and I won't pretend to be.  But, if that is the issue which is preventing some clean racing at the tracks, then we need to be concerned about what NASCAR is doing.  It seems to me, that for the past dozen years, NASCAR is floundering in every aspect of what it is trying to do, from getting fans in the stands to presenting a decent race for the fans who do buy the over-priced tickets or choose to watch on television.

There is a story long circulated, from the 1964 season, the truth of which is not personally known to me, but would serve a purpose as to the down force discussion. As the story goes, Lee Petty was standing trackside at Charlotte (some say Daytona) during practice.  He allegedly put a couple of cigars, still in their cellophane wrapper, down on the track and he, along with others, watched son Richard run right over them in that Hemi Plymouth.  We are told that the cigars were no even crushed nor the cellophane damaged as the car was so light due to the speed it was running.  That, friends, is lack of down-force.  When you look back on the 1964 season, with the exception of the tragedies with Little Joe, Fireball, and Jimmy Pardue on the stock car side of racing, which was a very competitive season, even with the dominating power of the Mopar Hemi.  Please note that not one of the fatalities mentioned occurred due to lack of down force.  The racing was competitive from track to track.  Go to 1965 when Ford dominated because there were no Mopars.  Who can forget the three wide race, lap after lap, at Charlotte between three Fords.  Through the turns and down the straights.

I think NASCAR has long had the answer to making the cars more drivable. NASCAR just chose to ignore the answer because it is easier to pretend you HAVE all the answers than it is to admit you NEED answers.  Maybe now we're getting somewhere.  Just have to wait and see.

But, I digress and I apologize. The issue I was hoping to bring home tonight is the fact that in addition to what needs to be done with the cars, we need to consider these cookie-cutter tracks which ruin the sport, in my opinion.   Folks have mentioned shortening the races.  Not sure I would agree with that on an overall basis but there may be some merit in shortening some of them.  Some have mentioned shortening the season.  Most of the folks in that camp are these pampered drivers who want to earn their millions with the absolute least amount of effort.  Oh, I agree they put their lives on the line when they are on the track, but we have developed an entire field of "entitlement" drivers.  That is nothing like it was in the days when the sport was being birthed, developed, and brought into adulthood.  Drivers we had then, and yes, I am referring to the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, were a different breed.  Those guys lived the sport and gave the sport much more than they ever received.

Every time I am able to attend an event where there is a Hall of Fame ceremony (Not the NASCAR HOF), or such an event as the "Walk of Fame" dedication for Donnie Allison in Mooresville a couple of weeks ago, it is easy to see the emotional connection those guys had, and still have, with the sport. Not so with these candy-butts of today.  They are quick to take the accolades and material rewards, but giving back to the sport is an afterthought, if ever a thought at all.

I know many of you listening are thinking to yourself “wow, Tim didn't stay on point tonight at all". Well, in my mind, it is all related to the non-relevance of the "oval office” of which we spoke at the outset.  The "employees" in their colorful cubicles continue to pursue the Christmas bonus to which they feel entitled, and the customers (we the fans) don’t seem to get our money's worth on any level.  I guess that thought, along with the continuing decline of the oval tracks, sort of whet hand-in-hand with my non-politically correct thinking.  I won't get so political here that Jeff will cut me off (like he did last week), but I'll just say the state of the Union, (oh excuse me) the State of NASCAR is such that someone should being giving consideration to the "oval offices" we fans once enjoyed.  So few oval offices remain now and we have to fight the dirty air and all the problems with today's cars when a simple return to a stock bodied car would be a major step in the right direction.  Just ask Hugh Overcash.  He's given the answer over and over and over, as has Billy Biscoe and several others, but no one is listening.

Yes, we need to return the importance of those oval offices. Let's make NASCAR great again!  (Sorry about that Donald but I couldn't resist).