Shhhh! New solution for old problem no one admits (cont'd)

Hamlin was among a group of many drivers who came to the defense of Campbell's place -- and that was even before Hamlin drove his No. 11 Toyota to victory in Sunday's race.

"I definitely like coming to Martinsville. ... It is a track that most everyone looks forward to. You've got to kind of go with the economy and see how things are going, but you always want to keep to your roots and this is where it all pretty much started," Hamlin said.

1on1: Clay Campbell

"... I'm not concerned about the future and a lack of Martinsville on the schedule."

• Complete interview, click here

Well, that in fact would be Daytona Beach, Fla., or maybe Charlotte, N.C. But Martinsville is pretty close, hosting a series of events from 1949 through 1955 that were called simply "105 Miles at Martinsville," except for in the first of two events in 1950 that was instead billed as "79 Miles at Martinsville" for some reason. Those events began a string of racing at the Cup level that has been unbroken in all the years since at the track.

The future?

Other drivers stood up for Martinsville's future during the weekend, too, including Dale Earnhardt Jr.

Asked if he thought Martinsville deserves to keep the two race dates it currently has, Earnhardt replied: "Absolutely, man. We can't lose any more short tracks in the season. They ain't building any short tracks to replace them. And we can't afford to lose any more short tracks."

That begs a question, the answer of which might ultimately provide the key to Martinsville's long-term future. If it cannot be answered, then perhaps Martinsville will continue on as now indefinitely, secure in the fact that it provides the kind of racing that others cannot. But that, quite frankly, seems unlikely.

Earnhardt's comments are correct. But the question that hasn't been asked often enough is this: if they ain't building any short tracks, why not?

That is where NASCAR may have missed the mark in recent years. New tracks went up in Kansas and in Joliet, Ill., which they call Chicagoland, but nice as they are, they're not short tracks.

And don't give us this garbage about how it isn't possible to build a short track and get enough seats crammed around it to make it economically feasible. They've done it at Bristol, haven't they? Expanded from 71,000 seats when it was purchased by Speedway Motorsports Inc. in 1996 to 160,000 seats today, it routinely sells out. The SMI folks worked with the right politicians to get some decent roads built heading into the place, too.

Why can't the same be done at Martinsville to end this discussion once and for all? Martinsville is one of the 12 tracks owned by International Speedway Corp. that host Cup events. If the local and state governments worked together with ISC to improve the infrastructure around it and leading into it, and if ISC made a real commitment to upgrading the facility itself, why couldn't Martinsville become another Bristol?

It wouldn't have to be 160,000 seats strong, but it could be great if they tore down much of what's there now and started over, adding suites and decent restrooms and concession stands that didn't look as if they are about to cave in. The paperclip configuration of the track could remain the same, giving the place the proper sense of history and preserving its longstanding tradition of holding exciting and unique competition.

But to do it right, they would have to close the place down for a year or so to perform the renovations and get the politicians to agree to start at least expanding and improving existing roads around it. That would mean taking a couple of Martinsville dates away, even if only temporarily -- and the mere mention of that makes too many folks who need to start listening close their ears.

In the end, though, if nothing is done, they won't have to worry. The place ultimately will fall silent.

The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.