Contributions from readers of The Indy Idea are both welcomed and encouraged. In particular, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments that do not mirror my own.
The following example is from VirtualBalboa. My comments follow. I invite you to add yours.
VirtualBalboa
"Can't agree that the IRL was ever a good idea. Should have taken a seat on the board and run a team with Americans in order to try and divert the direction instead of shooting the whole thing in the head to save it from itself. It's tough to say, after all, that he was a success in saving the 500 if there isn't one, or if it becomes a classics race. Road to hell paved in good intentions and all that."
RoggespierreYou'll get no argument from me about the IRL failing to save the 500. However, I suspect that a seat on the board would not have mattered all that much. He wasn't going to stop the leveraging and rent-seeking that
destroyed the economics of the sport. He wasn't going to have enough influence to change the direction.
Hindsight being what it is, I would suggest that he did not go far enough with the IRL. The product required greater differentiation. He probably focused too much on the tracks (the all-oval rigidity) and too little on the cars. He also failed to sufficiently address the underlying economic problems in the supply chain. Yes, a cottage industry began to take root, but it did not include the base chassis. The engine economics were pretty good initially, but he blew them up to attract Toyota and Honda.
VirtualBalboa
"I've seen a couple arguments about trying to do redistribution of sponsorship. A lofty goal perhaps but I don't see this as being realistic. Nor do I necessarily see ridding Penske and Ganassi as being a way to solve the problem. Indy without Penske is like F1 without Ferrari at this stage. It was devastating to the legitimacy of the race when they weren't around, even if the US 500 itself was a failure..."
Roggespierre
Allow me to clarify my position. Redistribution of sponsorship is
not something that I support. And I do not want to get rid of the Penske and Ganassi teams. What I do want is more IndyCar teams that have legitimate,
value-based financing that they sell in the competitive market for auto racing sponsorship. Penske will keep his sponsor because he operates in a non-competitive advertising market. That will change only with the law.
Ganassi is a
different story. Recall the rumors about Lifelock sponsoring Buddy Rice in 2009. We don't know why, but we do know that Lifelock landed at Ganassi. Remember Robby McGehee's Energizer car? That went away when Ganassi came to the IRL. Ganassi's ability to land consumer products sponsors is limited only by the number of product categories in stock at Target. He can offer something that is of much greater value than sponsorship of an IndyCar team.
I want all IndyCar teams to have an opportunity to sell value that is correlated with their cost of operating. That requires slashing operating expenses. If that were to occur, then Ganassi would have to compete for sponsors. What might happen then? Who knows? Perhaps he would keep them all; good for him if he does. However, having observed the distribution of consumer products sponsors in NASCAR Cup, I suspect that Ganassi might have some difficulty.
My point is that Ganassi is fully incentivized to maintain a
status quo in which the cost of operating an IndyCar team is greater than the promotional value that the team generates. For as long as that remains the case, Ganassi can continue to add Fortune 500 associate sponsors without having to compete with other teams.
VirtualBalboa
"No one buys that the Americans in the IRL are the best US drivers. Americans don't care if they win because no one believes they're racing world class opposition anymore. No one thinks they're in the toughest series in the world, or that they are better than their peers. This is because they are right: Kyle Busch, Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, and Jimmie Johnson are likely the 4 best drivers currently birthed in this country, and none drives Indy cars. Fans recognize that and don't want to support a second rate series. Until they shake that (and is there any other way than to bring in NASCAR talent?), there's nothing they can do. It's an image problem that started with the media ridiculing the "stars of the short track" and only built steam when Juan Pablo Montoya denigrated the 500 en route to dominating it."
Roggespierre
Again, I do not disagree. However - and this might raise some objections - I will argue that it does not matter whether or not Americans think that the IRL has the best American drivers. My position rests on the quantifiable demand that has been demonstrated for the NASCAR Grand National Series. It, too, does not include the best American drivers - not always, anyway. That said, is there anyone at the IRL offices who would not like to have Grand National's attendance and
television ratings right about now? They look pretty attractive to me.
Furthermore, I admit that I do not care whether or not anyone believes that IndyCar attracts the best drivers in the world. The entire "best" argument, in my view, is one for the bar stool. I want an IndyCar Series that is a
competitive product. A strong base of drivers from the United States is critical to establishing market competitiveness. We need only look at Indy Lights and Atlantics for evidence to suggest that the combination of spec formula cars and road courses is not likely to generate the desired product attributes for IndyCar.
In my view, VirtualBalboa is right about Montoya. But I would argue that it was the Indy 500 of the following year that led to IRL capitulation and economic ruin. Montoya might have been written off as a singular talent. But all credibility was lost in 2001, when Eliseo Salazar, the top IRL finisher, crossed the bricks a lap down in 7th place.
VirtualBalboa
"One thing rarely discussed in lieu of all this is that open wheel dirt racing is in decline. There's far fewer cars than there were 5-10 years ago and dirt tracks are closing down rather than appearing. The World of Outlaws is trucking along with its sprints and late models, but one look at the number of available entries for midget, sprint, and Silver Crown in 2009 is well down. The entire ladder is broken, not just the top rung."
Roggespierre
This is undeniably true. That is why I do not believe that dirt track drivers in large numbers are essential in order to achieve market acceptance. It is much more important that the IRL establish a strong base of competitive drivers from the United States. It would be nice if two or three were established dirt racers. There should be room enough in the IRL for both A.J. Foyt and Peter Revson.
Roggespierre
