NASCAR: I Call Age Discrimination!
Take the following with a grain of salt:
According to Rowdy.com NASCAR is mulling the idea of limiting Sprint Cup participation to those 21 years of age and older. The Nationwide Series limit would remain at 18.
There is a couple reasons I’ve grabbed my salt shaker on this story.
The source for this rumor is the ever [un]popular “reliable inside source.” We all know how “reliable” they are, if you have doubts about that contact the Dilner fella over at Speed. (or a cast of thousands)
Secondly I question the now, nearly proverbial… “timing.” Shouldn’t this have been considered at minimum a couples months ago and if implemented published as fact long before now?
Of course, to be fair, there IS the NASCAR Cognitive Disconnect
Best opinion I’ve see thus far:
Blame Coors.
Why? Perhaps they want the ability to use any driver in an ad as part of their sponsorship as the “Official Beer”. Or whatever it may be. At some point in time, if they cross an under age driver, out goes that.
May not have been an issue with Bud, as they already were tied to a car when they had the position.
Also, I can see where this would force a little more seat time in the
BuschNationwide Series, which could lead to a few less wrecks. Assuming an 18yr old would put it in the fence (or put someone else in the fence) less than a 21yr old that had 3 more years in the #2 league.It’s at least something to ponder, while warming up the propeller, and shining up the hat.
Luke’s last blog post..Daytona 500: 45 Days and Counting
Interesting theory Luke. As you can now see, Poole has picked up the story but still has no named sources.
I also can see the point of some the younger the driver the better chances of them being in wrecks. However, David Ragan may not fit that pattern at 22 years of age last year and also “league” leader in wrecks caused or part of in 2007.
The top three “wreckers” in 2006 were J.J. Yely (30 at the time) second was older than dirt Front Row Joe, third was the not much younger Newman. (29 at the time)
Look at the Baby Busch stats in 2005 when he was only 20, hid percentage of races with wrecks was 12th on the list and a full 7 behind Mikey and brother Kurt who led. That goes against everyones impression he was a “wreck-a-minute.”
I’ll concede the “experience” argument, to a point, but not as a blanket statement to raise the age limit. Every driver is different and to make a blanket limit is going too far.
But, that’s just me.
Keep the snot-nosed punks where they belong!
thank you - One Old Fart
Sorry phastphil, I don’t buy it and the stats over the last few years provide all the cover I need.
18 works for me…but then again, I don’t remember 18.
Truth be told, I really don’t care that much. But that depends on how NASCAR trys to sell this idea. If the all-out push is on keeping “kids” in NW of the NCTS to promote those series’ I’m OK with it.
If they play the “he’s too immature” card, I don’t buy it for a second. And if they try it the tried and true arguement of “if he’s old enough to fight for his country” he’s old enough to drive Sprint Cup cars will show up with some degree of validity.
According to Webster.com
sarcasm defined
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Sorry I don’t think my attempt at humor made the point that I wanted to make.
I believe 18 is a reasonable age and beyond that qualifications for a NASCAR driver should be based on merit.
Maturity is hard to quantify. Was Tony Stewart showing maturity when he ran Matt Kenseth down into the infield a few years back at Daytona? Or, did Kurt Busch deserve only a one race suspension when he nearly ran over one of Tony Stewart’s crew in the pits after their little on track hissy fit?
Thanks Phastphil, I missed that. You can add to that list of “less mature than proven age” Robby Gordon after his stunt of “winning” a race he didn’t.
The more I think about this it really does boil down to money. I’ve got to give Lou (who commented on my site) the nod into the true insight here.
I’ll just quote some tidbits from him:
Lou makes sense, to a point. I would disagree with PCNA & Co. being that worried about loss of revenue because of “Buschwackers.”
From the accounts I’ve read both attendance and TV ratings (for what they’re worth) in Busch were both up marginally last year.
That aside, with the Pony Cars apparently being introduced in 2009 it gives the series a new and entirely different market, i.e. a potentially younger audience (if marketed correctly) AND the potential to draw away some of the “kids” that have stampeded the Formula D series.
Darren… see the latest update I added to the post.
I’m tired of dodging the 18-21 year old NASCAR wannabees on my local highways and byways, I for one don’t need to see them on TV as well.
If parents are hanging their financial futures on their progeny “making” it in racing, it’s their risk. Racing doesn’t “owe” them an early entree to the sport. And it’s the team owners fault for signing kids to development deals as well. Let ‘em support ‘em for another three years.
What’s better George - dodging them on the highways and byways where they can crash and injure you and yours. Or watching the few, the very few, on TV that have in most cases “trained” for years to get into NASCAR?
That aside, it appears this trial balloon is being popped rather quickly: Here’s Helton’s remarks on the matter:
Eat it up they have. And this ain’t gonna happen now or in the future. Period.