Changes abound: Schedule, Red Bull, RCR

1. Big-picture question: If you're in charge of the Sprint Cup Series, what changes do you make, to the schedule or otherwise?

David Caraviello: Well, the schedule seems very top-of-mind these days, so I'll start there. I cannot for the life of me figure out why NASCAR doesn't follow the Daytona 500 with Las Vegas. Phoenix is great and all, but if you want a big boost for your second event -- which almost always suffers from a letdown -- why not go to the one big city that embraces NASCAR more than any other? And that's Vegas.

Chris Stanfield: I thought what Kevin Harvick said at a recent news conference was interesting -- that the biggest boom the series had ever seen came in 2001 when drivers went to new venues in Chicago and Kansas, and you had all this movement with the schedule and you created all these new fans. So, I'm digging the change in the schedule, but wonder (in this economy) if people can really afford to take their family to the track regardless of where the race is held.

Raygan Swan: I think eliminating one of the two California dates and giving a place like Kansas a second date is a good move. No matter what markets you are trying to capture, I believe you have to service your loyal audience. Race where the demand is. Last, I am all for more Cup racing in the Midwest (Kentucky's new date) and DC will help us define the geographical locale of said region! Kansas? Midwest?

Chris Stanfield: Oh, and I'd add Bristol and a road course to the Chase ...

David Caraviello: Sorry, Raygan. Kentucky's in the South, and Kansas is a Great Plains state. No more Midwest for you! Chris, from a selfish point of view, I'll admit, I like the schedule changes. This is a grind, and anything new is nice. It will be kind of neat to go to some new places -- OK, one new place -- and some areas at different times of the year. In that regard, change is good.

Raygan Swan: Chris, I agree with the road course idea. It used to be that our Cup guys weren't strong on road courses and would use ringers, but they excel now. So put The Glen or Sonoma in the Chase.

David Caraviello: Of course, Harvick fails to mention that the attention and interest levels following Dale Earnhardt's accident also helped NASCAR reach the height of its popularity post-2001. We certainly don't have any interest in going through something like that again.

Chris Stanfield: Agreed, David. It seems kind of odd, though, that a road course wouldn't be a part of the Chase. To your point, Raygan, the Cup Series has evolved and the regulars are doing just fine turning right.

David Caraviello: I love road courses, but I just don't think one belongs in the Chase. Road courses are two of 36 events. That's all. Placing one in the Chase would make it 10 percent of the championship hunt, and out of whack with the proportion of road courses to the season overall. Now, if it added another road-course race, maybe. But that isn't happening.

Raygan Swan: Well, it would just be another wild-card race like Talladega. But you're right, it is not reflective or the season, and would be a bit for show biz, I guess. One other thing I had a question on was Michigan and Pocono. I still think those dates need to be further apart. I know David will tell us Pocono still puts up great numbers at both events, but what about Michigan? We are going this weekend, and I feel like we just left.

David Caraviello: I will admit, Raygan, that if I were in Brian France's office for a day, one of the first things I'd do is shorten the schedule to eliminate issues like the timing of the Pocono and Michigan events. Thirty races is plenty. Get done before the height of the football season. Leave people wanting a little more, like the NFL does so well. The issue is, maybe NASCAR's business model demands 36 points events, I don't know. But you won't see any shortening until at least the new television contract a few years from now.

Raygan Swan: Yeah, I don't see why we need to go anywhere twice, maybe other than Daytona, and I'm sure there are focus groups that point to fan fatigue. But the sport doesn't always make sense, it's more concerned with cents.

Chris Stanfield: Back to ticket prices. Am I the only one who thinks it costs too much to take a family to the track? If we're being honest, the racing has been good this season and I'm having a hard time believing that's the reason people aren't filling the stands. Everyone has to make a buck -- I get that -- but in a sport that deals in volume (packing the stands) can NASCAR work with the tracks to offer the baseball equivalent of the bleacher seats?

David Caraviello: Chris, NASCAR tickets have been reduced at a much sharper rate than many other pro sports. Shoot, many college and pro-football programs are still raising ticket prices. Is NASCAR too expensive for some people? Sure. But it's a diversion. You need discretionary income to do it, and that's dried up for a lot of people right now. And to be fair, Raygan, sports that don't concern themselves with dollars and cents go out of business. This isn't a charity or a social program. A lot of people seem to think they have some inherent right to attend NASCAR events, and that just isn't true, not here or in any sport.

Raygan Swan: You know, I don't think ticket prices are as big of an issue as people make them out to be, because we choose how to spend our discretionary or disposable income. I may be broke and skimping on my food bill, but I'm still buying a $5 latte at Starbucks. People choose how to spend their funds and where to make a sacrifice. If avid NASCAR fans want to go to the races, they'll just cut in other areas.

David Caraviello: We all do the same. And I choose to spend my discretionary funds on small-batch whiskeys. And after spending a full day in Kentucky this week, I could certainly use one ...

• Phoenix to follow Daytona as part of schedule shuffle
• Finally, Kentucky gets long-awaited Cup Series date
• Drivers ready for the new look to Cup schedule in 2011
• Chicagoland Speedway chosen to open 2011 Chase (Continued)