Technically -- Jack Roush does not own five Nextel Cup Series teams. Credit: Autostock

Last Lap: Owning Up

A hypothetical from Anytown, USA: You're down at the Triangle Lanes, perusing the tattered Trapper Keeper that holds the key to karaoke grandeur, when DJ Cool Breeze cues the microphone to reveal the fourth of five questions in tonight's sports trivia challenge.

Overall winner gets his choice of complimentary game of bowling -- shoes included -- Rusty Wallace cardboard standup or Cleveland Browns inflatable football helmet. Individual who correctly answers current question gets item of choice from the concession stand.

The question: Greg Biffle is the driver of the No. 16 NASCAR. (Noticed recently: How many times do you hear folks misuse the term "NASCAR" as automobile rather than corporation?) I digress. Back to Cool Breeze: Who is the owner of Biffle's car?

	MARTY SMITH •   E-mail Marty •   Opinion Archive •   Store: 'I Agree With Marty' tee

Def Leppard Dave, the dude that just butchered "Pour Some Sugar On Me", pipes up first, obnoxiously:

"Jack Roush! Gimme my onion rings!"

"Nope," chuckles Cool Breeze, amused.

Def Leppard Dave is incensed. He's a Greg Biffle fan, after all, and knows sure as his hair is long that Biffle drives the No. 16 National Guard/Subway/Post-It Jack Roush Racing Ford Taurus. DJ Cool Breeze is an idiot.

For clarification, Cool Breeze locates the current Nextel Cup Series owner point standings on NASCAR.COM.

"Says here it's a guy named Geoff Smith, not Jack Roush," Cool Breeze grins.

Def Leppard Dave won't buy it. He reads and hears every day that Jack Roush is the owner of the Nos. 6, 16, 17, 97 and 99 cars. Cool Breeze is a moron. Geoff Smith? Who then? DFD has been a fan for 15 years. He's never heard of this person.

Back to reality. Sorry DFD, no onion rings for you.

Technically, Roush isn't the owner, even though he owns the parent company, Roush Racing, that houses and operates the vehicle, not to mention he employs every individual that builds and maintains the car. So how's that work?

In speaking with NASCAR, here's what I gather: Basically, NASCAR and its owners have an agreement that states only two teams per organization are eligible to receive special television money awarded to teams through a "car/champion owner" plan.

Per this plan, NASCAR tracks team statistics in three-year increments and awards more money to those that excel. Past champions are also given consideration, which is why you'll sometimes see Jeff Green finish 35th and make more money than the driver that finished 20th.

This is why organizations like Roush Racing and Hendrick Motorsports list cars under other names. By naming Smith, Roush Racing's president, owner of the No. 16 car, Roush Racing circumvents the "rule."

It's the same reason Floyd Ganassi is listed as owner of the No. 42 and J.D. Gibbs is listed as owner of the No. 11 and Mary Hendrick is listed as owner of the No. 25.

Welcome to multi-car dominance.

The benefits for doing this are many, obviously. First, depth. In turn, resources, people, equipment. In turn, testing. In turn information. In turn, single and even some two-car teams can't keep up. Some form an alliance with a mega-team. Some simply wither.

The little man is being shoved from the sport.

Some think it's ruining, or has the potential to ruin, the whole shebang.

There is no question it is one of the most important and potentially damning issues currently facing NASCAR.

Should NASCAR address the issue of those who skirt the rules and "own" several cars under one corporate umbrella?

Yep. And they know it, too. This issue snuck up on, then got away from NASCAR a bit, and in my opinion we'll see a cap on the number of teams an owner can field within the next several years. There is no easy solution.

	Credit: Autostock
	Who? The listed owners of some of the most popular rides in the Nextel Cup Series No. Driver Owner 11 T. Labonte J.D. Gibbs 16 G. Biffle Geoff Smith 17 M. Kenseth Mark Martin 25 B. Vickers Mary Hendrick 42 J. McMurray Floyd Ganassi 48 J. Johnson Jeff Gordon 91 B. Elliott R. Evernham Sr. 97 K. Busch Georgetta Roush

RCR293107: I don't know if they need to change that rule or not, but they need to find a way to get single-car teams more competitive. I don't know if the single-car teams are underfunded or if it simply the lack of testing time they get compared to the "corporate" teams. I would imagine it's both.

We are already seeing Ganassi and the Wood Bros. setting up additional teams just to stay competitive. Even my beloved RCR is going to need a fourth if they don't want to fall further behind and they're behind enough now. If I could look into my crystal ball I would say the days of single car teams are numbered.

We will be looking at all the cars being owned by Roush, Hendrick, Ganassi, Yates (they will need a third car), Childress, and DEI. Forty-three cars owned by five or six teams, I don't think that can be a good thing.

It's a great question, but the answer is probably one of the most complicated NASCAR has on it's plate -- if they are looking to fix it.

It is undoubtedly one of the most complicated issues currently facing the sanctioning body. It's not something that is solvable overnight. This is a predicament that requires a multiyear activation plan.

Telling Jack Roush that has to shut down two cars is no simple proposition. In the meantime, the best quick fix is a testing restriction: 10 tests per organization at NASCAR-sanctioned tracks, period. No more five tests per team crap.

I mean, do the math: Roush Racing has 25 tests to use on 22 tracks, while Robert Yates Racing has just 10. How is that fair? RYR has done an admirable job keeping up, but eventually that's going to catch up to you.

Ashton Kutcher agrees:

Demioman: I think that the idea of applying the testing limitations to the organizations, rather than the cars is a good one. Right now that seems to be the prime reason why we are seeing these super teams.

By taking away that advantage, so that Roush gets the same number of tests that Petty does regardless of the number of cars, will take away the incentive to have these massive teams.

The teams will still share some information and the multi-car teams won't go away immediately, but will probably pare down through attrition. DEI's current situation could be an example of this, in that the 15 team may not have a driver or a sponsor next year, so rather than feeling that they have to field that car, under the new testing rule, they may just not run the 15 at all.

Word on the street is NASCAR is contemplating an amendment to the current top-35 rule for next season that would guarantee a position in the field to the top top-three cars, points-wise, in any organization.

If that were the case this year, Carl Edwards would not be eligible to take advantage of the top-35 rule, while Travis Kvapil, who ranks 25 points positions worse, would.

wyldwing: Rules can be "skirted" only if the wording and enforcement of them allows it. Doing something about it would be NASCAR's responsibility, yes.

What happens if teams are more severely limited on number of cars per team, or number of teams per owner/financier? What will that do to R&D and testing time per team?

Is NASCAR willing to back off on the impound rule? Unless NASCAR plans to institute salary caps and other team regulations, ownership names and documentation could simply change to accommodate the new rules, resulting in a more complex paper trail.

"Unofficial" sharing of test information and/or personnel may or may not occur even with the strictest rules NASCAR can enforce regarding ownership. Teams backed by big owners and money would still spend more and come out ahead more often.

If NASCAR chooses to address this issue, conflict of interest rules regarding owners and drivers should also be scrutinized. Race example: Tony Stewart was driving a car owned by Harvick while Harvick was driving another car in the same race. Does anybody but me see a problem here?

Announcers in the booth even laughed about team orders -- when Tony got on the radio to Kevin asking if it's OK to pass his boss. Maybe they were joking around ... maybe not. But you wonder.

Other sports have the player draft where winning teams have the lowest draft picks the following season, not likely a functional concept in NASCAR. Other sports have salary caps.

Could NASCAR cap the amount spent by any one team -- regardless of the owner -- during the year? This would seem a more enforceable way to go.

Two things, here, Buffalo Bill. First, I checked with a Nextel Cup Series team owner about the feasibility of a salary/spending cap, and was informed it wouldn't work because NASCAR considers its teams independent contractors.

Whereas other sports leagues' financial records are public record, NASCAR's aren't because they're not franchised.

And secondly, are you really concerned that Tony Stewart might yield to Kevin Harvick because he's driving a KHI car? Ummm, no. Wouldn't happen. Neither is running for a points championship, first of all, and secondly neither would ask the other to do such a preposterous thing. This isn't F1.

I assume you must have thought Dale Earnhardt wasn't racing hell-bent for the checkers when engaged in competition with his son, too?

RacingOtter: It would be real hard to enforce. And if you take apart well-established teams to "correct" the "problem", then drivers and teams would suffer due to reorganization.

Competitive drivers would, for a little while, be less so due to changes that would have to be made. The big corporations thrive due to the information shared between the teams under their roof.

If teams have to be reorganized and/or drivers/teams moved outside the corporation, these lines of communication would be broken. And sponsorships would factor in there as well.

If the big corporations are broken up to become black-and-white with the rules, would the sponsors, especially the big-money sponsors, would they want to hang around until the pieces are put back in place?

Like the NASCAR rule book for race setup, if it's not specifically in there, then it's an area to work in-at least until they make it specific.

That's precisely what is currently happening, Oliver.

driver17_ pa: Personally I do not think the issue needs addressed. I do not see what good it would bring to the sport. In fact I think limiting owners to only 2 teams under the corporate umbrella could be detrimental.

Look at the atmosphere in Nextel Cup as we speak. There are not 50 or 60 cars showing up in given week to qualify for races like there were in the early days of the sport.

If 45 cars show up for a race that is a lot, and of those 45 at least three to five are not regular runners of the series. The cost, along with the 36-race schedule and 2 non-points paying races costs a heck of a lot more than the old 30-race schedule with most of the races in the Southeast and a lot less travel.

Did you know that Mark Martin is a Nextel Cup Series team owner? Credit: Autostock

By eliminating the super team -- Roush, Hendrick, Penske, Gibbs, DEI, or Ganassi -- you would put nine cars out of competition. And not just any nine cars, but nine competitive racecars. How is this going to make the racing any better?

The budgets are not going to decrease and it is still going to cost 25 to 40 million a year to operate a Cup championship-contending team. So as much as you all like to complain, the super team is not going away, it is just a way of life.

Now if NASCAR would like to make it easier for more teams to enter the sport, cutting costs is the place to start. Eliminate testing, make Friday a test day, Saturday qualifying as well as bringing back the real Happy Hour on Saturday evening, cut out the non-points paying races in the schedule, and find a cheaper alternative to plate racing.

That would help cut a portion of the budget for a team and maybe entice more single car entrants into the sport.

Several good points are made, here, namely the cost-cutting suggestion. But DW's figures are bit lofty. Currently, Nextel Cup Series sponsorships run between seven and $20 million.

According to one team owner, eliminating testing would save teams in excess of $2 million annually. He also said conducting tests actually costs teams more than competing in races, because there's no financial return from purse monies.

Moreover, while accommodations aren't as expensive for tests as they are on race weekends, testing requires more personnel than race weekends do.

8nut: Let's take away the cars and make it a foot race. I guess Goodyear can make some tennis shoes that won't blow out every five laps. NO MORE RULES. It takes a tractor-trailer to haul them now.

Goodyear is already producing shoe soles for some Adidas footwear, Almond Joy, so your suggestion might be feasible. My money is on Carl Edwards or Jimmie Johnson. No more rules? Crash-up derby! Anarchy in the infield!

Somehow, Joy, that suggestion just doesn't seem viable. But that's the beauty of gray area, isn't it?

The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.