![]()

In Las Vegas, three Cup drivers ended their day after 65 laps or less. At Fontana, the number climbed to six. In the Nationwide Series, the number is higher with four going home early in Las Vegas and seven leaving the Fontana race.
Start-and-park teams have been a part of NASCAR for a while, but recently the attention on these lower-tiered teams has been tightened. This past weekend in Las Vegas, NASCAR announced a change to the inspection process when it comes to teams leaving a race without being involved in an accident (read more).
So should NASCAR just eliminate the opportunity for teams to start and park? Read both sides of the argument and weigh in with your thoughts in the comments at the bottom. Don't forget to vote on whose argument you agree with more in the poll at the right.
| YES | NO |
|---|---|
If an owner doesn't want to pay for tires and a pit crew to finish a race, why should fans bring their hard earned money to the track to watch the efforts of someone going through the motions? If nothing else, start-and-park reeks of tackiness, degrades the field and makes a mockery of the sport preformed at its highest level. Fans come out and tune in to watch their drivers race their hearts out -- not to display a half-ability to make left turns, drop to the back of the field and then head to the garage for ... ahem ... engine (i.e. money) problems. NASCAR's recent announcement that they plan to keep an eye on teams who enter races with no intention of trying to finish foreshadows that even the sanctioning body recognizes the problem. And it's about time. Imagine taking your family to a Major League ballpark, only to see one ball club take the field with three less players in the third inning because the owner couldn't afford to field an entire team. No one -- the fans, other owners, corporate sponsors or the league itself would stand for it and if this is "my NASCAR," why would I expect anything less? I have a certain amount of empathy for teams and their owners who are chasing the dreams of being a part of this great sport. But let's face it, the Cup Series -- NASCAR's premier series, mind you, isn't exactly the place to be cutting your teeth or scraping by. • Chris Stanfield, NASCAR.COMThe opinions expressed are solely those of the writer. |
I'm not a fan of start-and-park teams -- but what exactly is the harm? If a team enters the race, pays the entry fee, practices and qualifies for the race, why does that team need to race to the finish if it doesn't want to? Because it bumped a full-time team out of the race? That logic makes no sense. Sure, it's frustrating for fans to see a team pack it up 30 laps into a race, but let's be honest, some teams don't have the budgets that Hendrick, Roush, Gibbs, and others have. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to participate. The fact is, this team came to the track and qualified well enough to make the field. If for monetary reasons that team feels it's better to not wreck and settle for last-place money, no one can, or should be able to, prevent that. It's their prerogative. There are teams in every sport that don't spend a lot of money and aren't as successful as the top teams. Should the MLB, NFL or NBA step in and tell them they can't compete? The Royals don't spend as much as the Yankees and are no where near as competitive, so the Royals shouldn't even bother. Start-and-parks have been around forever. It's nothing new in NASCAR, but for some reason a light is shining on it right now. These teams aren't breaking any rules, and aren't altering the competition, so just let it be. • Bill Kimm, NASCAR.COMThe opinions expressed are solely those of the writer. |
Related:
The state of start and park: non-competitive, non-issue