NASCAR TV Analyst Larry McReynolds Asks for Positive Coverage,

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/01/tv_analyst_larry_mcreynolds_ur.html

 

Not a very smart plea.

Here's an idea, NASCAR. Why not make winning a race mean a little something in your manufactured postseason?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people in sports view members of the media as independent sales agents for their brand.

 

I can't wait to read some of the reader comments on the stories about McReynolds' comments.

There will, without a doubt, be some Hall of Fame posts.

 

Sounds like McReynolds is racing's version of Golf Channel's Charlie Rymer. A couple of years ago, when Northern Trust was being ripped for sponsoring the old Los Angeles Open, Rymer, at a luncheon to promote a golf show, told reporters they should all write stories thanking sponsors for what they do for the game. I'm sitting there thinking, "Who is Charlie Rymer, anyway?"

 

This from the same paper that routinely doesn't indicate that quotes they got come straight off a press release on breaking stuff. But that's just my pet peeve.

 

I'd say it's hardly alone in that distinction.

 

As usual, the idiotic responses from readers who somehow figured out how to use a keyboard instead of gnawed crayons dives into how bad the media is, how it has no integrity and something about college football.

 

Not to side with Larry, but do NASCAR fans really care about attendance figures and TV ratings? Aren't newspaper writers supposed to be looking for stories that will be of interest to the readers?
I have covered every NASCAR at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana. I saw it packed to capacity, when it had one race a year and the economy was great. The crowds were comparable to Rose Bowl crowds or World Series games at Dodger Stadium or Angel Stadium.
I have seen Auto Club Speedway half empty in the grandstands, on 120 degree days on Labor Day weekend when the track had two races a year and the NASCAR crowd in LA was split.
I didn't see a reason to focus on sell-out crowds, other than a quick mention in a gamer. I don't see the newsworthiness of writing a story focusing on 40,000 or 50,000 fans showing up for races.
I would argue that 50,000 fans in Fontana is better for NASCAR than 30,000 in Rockingham. But I never wrote about it. I don't think NASCAR fans care.
What they do care is that races at Fontana are too long and boring. At least the track seems to have realized that and reduced its race to 400 miles.
It will be interesting to see how many people show up knowing the race in March is the only NASCAR visit to Fontana in 2011.

 

Sidetracking momentarily like a slide out of the second turn with rpm's mention of Fontana shortening their races, David Hill of FOX suggests shorter races to fit within a 3-hour TV window.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=ap-nascar-fox

Would it help from a fan, and possibly media, standpoint to have the Daytona or Talladega 400? The World 450? Slice off a quarter of the action at Bristol or Indy?

I think so.