Stands not an indicator of Atlanta's place in NASCAR

Friday morning brought rain and the kind of dark, oppressive clouds that seem to cling to the skies over Atlanta Motor Speedway. But race day promises sun and meteorological relief, something sorely needed for a racetrack that produces tremendous speeds and tremendous finishes often overshadowed by rows of empty seats.

The metropolitan areas of Atlanta and Los Angeles have more in common than the residents of either city would likely care to admit. Both are freeway-strangled municipalities where two-hour commutes aren't unheard of, and drivers can encounter five lanes of stopped Interstate traffic even at 3 in the morning. Both are fickle sports towns where pro teams often languish in indifference. Both have speedways located far from center cities, and saddled with rotten early-season positions on the NASCAR schedule.

But from an auto racing perspective, there's one key difference: California's relatively sparse crowds catch more heat than the 110-degree temperatures that often accompany the track's Labor Day date, while Atlanta's seem to be treated a little more gently. Although late former NASCAR chairman Bill France Jr. did mention the Hampton, Ga., facility as a possible target of schedule realignment when that plan was unveiled in 2003, nobody's banging the drum for Atlanta to lose a date.

Maybe it's because Atlanta has roughly 32,000 more seats than California, and its non-sellouts likely still attract enough people to fill up the Fontana track. Maybe it's because purists rue the fact that California's second Sprint Cup date came at the expense of two historic facilities, Darlington and Rockingham, while Atlanta -- host to NASCAR races since 1960 -- is one of those older facilities steeped in legend. Or maybe it's because of something the naked eye cannot see, something beyond the racecars and the racetrack and the grandstand seats, something that makes Atlanta as vibrant and productive as any other venue on the schedule.

Atlanta Motor Speedway, despite its location 30 miles south of the city among the open fields of Henry County, is very much the commercial crossroads of NASCAR. A variety of primary and secondary car sponsors, from UPS and The Home Depot to Coca-Cola and Siemens, are based in Atlanta. The 1.54-mile facility out in the red clay hills is their home track. And they make Atlanta a much more important, and in many ways a much more robust, racetrack than those empty seats on Sunday might otherwise suggest.

"You go up to our corporate suites, and walk up and down the concourse," said Greg Walter, Atlanta's vice president for sales, "and you'll find almost every major partner in NASCAR."

From a corporate standpoint, Walter said, Atlanta is on pace to have one of it best spring races ever. Atlanta-based companies like Delta Air Lines, which has no presence anywhere else in NASCAR, entertain at Atlanta. So does former primary car sponsor Georgia-Pacific. So does Gulfstream, the private jet company based three hours away in Savannah. Corporations that want to explore sponsorship opportunities often begin the process by sending executives to Atlanta, behind Miami the biggest city in the eastern United States with a racetrack, and a place with direct flights from anywhere.

That's not to say that other tracks -- particularly California, based so near to Los Angeles -- don't have a heavy corporate presence in their suites and infield hospitality facilities. But the established nature of NASCAR in Atlanta, combined with the abundance of racing-affiliated companies that call the city home, heightens the sponsor presence to a level that few other facilities can match. It's not something that comes across on television, not something that can be quantified as easily as butts in the seats. But as the teams with blank hoods on their racecars will attest, it's the sponsors that ultimately make this sport go.

Inbox of insensitivity

Wednesday's column about the process that led to the positioning of the SAFER barriers at Las Vegas Motor Speedway -- and the possibility that they could be extended, not just as Las Vegas but at every 1.5-mile tri-oval in the wake of Jeff Gordon's crash there last Sunday -- provoked plenty of e-mails from readers who can't see why NASCAR and the racetrack wouldn't want every wall covered with the protective substance.

Stay in shape

Jeff Gordon's violent crash at Las Vegas shook up everyone, and it made Raygan Swan realize that drivers need to focus on their physical health as much as they do on their cars.

• Complete story, click here
• Drivers have safety concerns
• Caraviello: Impact from crash
• Video: Burton speaks out
• Video: Biffle weighs in
• Podcast: Hard crashes at LVMS

But it also provoked something else: An astonishing level of insensitivity and sheer callousness toward a driver only out to better protect his own well-being. They wrote that Gordon was whining unnecessarily, that he had a "vendetta" against Matt Kenseth, that he had it coming because he caused the wreck to begin with. They claimed that NASCAR favors Gordon because it only looks into changes when he complains, and that he's a hypocrite for ever getting on the track to start with. It's disturbing that some people can take such a careless attitude toward human life.

Like J.K. in Delmont, Pa.: "I have seen a lot of drivers have much worse crashes than Jeff 'Golden Boy' Gordon. He has one crash that he walked away from, not injured and now he wants the tracks to do his bidding. Where was he when others crashed? It only has to be changed if it happens to [him]. NASCAR is being ruined with all the rules. Why not put the drivers in rubber cars so that they just bounce off each other. I saw Dale Earnhardt, Richard Petty, Rusty Wallace and many more, have worse crashes but they never asked the racetracks to make changes."

Or James in Tennessee: "This is just a smoke screen from the cry-baby. He was wrecking Matt Kenseth because he was faster than him and it backfired. I think he should be fined and docked points. He laughed when he said he didn't mean to get into Matt. What a phony."

And then there's that paragon of compassion, Betty from parts unknown: "Would there be any controversy regarding the barrier hit by Gordon if anyone else had hit it? Leave it alone. Maybe Gordon will get a second chance at it. Better yet, maybe it will get a second chance at Gordon."

This stuff leaves you at a loss for words. How anyone can dislike a driver to the point of wishing him physical harm is unthinkable. The fact is, the safety advances present in NASCAR today are there because drivers complained, because some sacrificed their careers or lives. This is not a proactive sport. It changes only after someone or something points out a deficiency, and Gordon did exactly that last Sunday. Virtually every driver in the garage would agree with him. So would guys like Jerry Nadeau and Bobby Allison, who suffered greatly because the life-saving technologies of today were not present then.

NASCAR and its racetracks should make every effort to ensure every wall is protected. Drivers should complain, and loudly, when they encounter something they believe is unsafe. And the "shut up and drive" crowd, so oblivious to the lessons of yesterday, should crawl back into their respective caves.