| By Marty Smith, NASCAR.COM
October 20, 2005
10:23 AM EDT (14:23 GMT)
Blame is a subjective term more often than not, especially in a world of overblown political correctness where covering one's own kiester ranks far higher on the priority scale than owning up and accepting responsibility. Just how it is. Race day offers a perfect example: Driver A: "Pretty simple... S.O.B. dumped me, needs to get his head out of his butt and open his eyes. My guys did a great job. Sweet 'n Low Chevy was fast today. We'll get 'em next week." Driver B: "Got chopped off. The 63 run over my right front fender entering the corner. I had a run on him, got to his quarter panel, had the position. He just run me over. Like to thank my guys, and all the boys back at the shop. Rolodex Taurus was fast today. We'll get 'em next week." Driver C: "I just got caught up in it. Idiots up there racin' like it's the last lap of the Daytona 500. Can't race like that this early in the race. Boys built me fast car. We'll just load up the Zyrtec-D 12-hour Dodge Charger and go get 'em next week." You get my drift: Anyone but No. 1. As a result, all we want is for someone to accept responsibility. Doing so invariably brings immediate closure to any situation. But sometimes there is no clear-cut culpability, rather a direct-effect, perfect storm scenario where once-harmonious variables collide in a spectacular meltdown. Welcome to Saturday, Oct. 15, 2005. Concord, N.C. Lowe's Motor Speedway. The UAW-GM Quality 500. By now you know the story. We needn't reopen the Pandora's box of details. Track, tire and tower all played a role, and sadly, fans and drivers suffered as a result. The fans saw a lackluster, accident-marred event in which their heroes were unwilling to unleash the fury for fear of ending up in a crumpled heap of wreckage, the result of a right front tire failure. But where do we go from here? I have no idea. My first inclination was to say graduated banking, ala Homestead-Miami Speedway. Given the considerable aero-sensitivity of the Cup cars' current configuration, drivers rave that variable banking makes for great competition. But heck, in the name of parity, the rulebook already requires too much similarity, too little individuality, between teams. Uniqueness, from a competition standpoint, is fading faster than Chad Knaus' hairline. The cars are equal (and with the car of the future/tomorrow will soon be virtually identical.) The shocks are equal. Every new track is 1.5 miles in length. The aforementioned interviews are molded from the same template. Sneezing during the driver's meeting falls under "actions detrimental to stock car racing." So if tracks start building variable banking into their configurations come time for a facelift, it'll be one less differentiating factor in the sport. Individuality has long been a NASCAR staple. Its fundamental uniqueness from stick-and-ball sports is enamoring to fans. But I fear we'll soon be discussing NASCAR: Nondescript Alliance of Severely Cloned Automobile Revolution. In other words: cars going in circles. No one wants that. Maybe I'm reading way too much into Saturday night's fiasco, I don't know. But what I do know is blame is moot, useless at this point. It's time to move forward together -- track, tire and tower -- and make certain the drivers are never again placed in that type of situation. The opinons expressed are solely of the writer. | 
