Nice write up for the IRL

from a SPEEDTV.com editorial
http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/34678/

Help the IRL to Understand We Don't Believe the Hype. This one's
rather frustrating—it could require a wish, a hope, and a prayer.

We've been told for a few years now that all's fine, and that low car
counts aren't a problem. Who'd want 26 cars at an IRL race, after all?
We've also been told that the tradition of 33 starters at Indy isn't a
prerequisite. Oh really.

Remember the part of The Matrix where Neo's given the option of
swallowing either the red or the blue pill? The blue pill would return
him to his blissful, fabricated, and force-fed life, whereas the red
pill would open his eyes to real problems of the world?

I'm tired of the IRL offering up truckloads of the blue pill. I want
the red pill for once. My wish is to make the IRL take the red pill
too. They need to see that years of offering fans the bare minimum of
cars or forward thinking will no longer cut it. Old cars, prohibitive
budgets, and a dim forecast for entrants to attract new sponsors will
keep new teams from appearing.

Same goes with the IRL's approach and regard for Indy. What's driven
down car counts for regular IRL events has also pulled Indy entries
down. The drama of the 'Month of May' has been replaced by the 'Day of
May.' Who'd tune into a month of practice and qualifying if all but
two of the entrants are guaranteed to make the race? The only drama
these days is between lap 1 to 200 on race day. 35 cars *battling* for
33 starting spots isn't actually a battle, IRL. It's natural
selection.

If there's a lesson for the IRL to be learned by peering over the
fence, it might be that their competitors at ChampCar have revamped
their entire approach to make it easier and more viable for their
teams to not just survive, but to thrive and expand.

Granted, ChampCar has few stars yet lots of cars; the IRL has some
stars and few cars. This is a good point to mention that most people
want more from their Indycar racing than just knowing Danica Patrick
or Ashley Judd's husband are in the field--maybe new fans and sponsors
would prefer to get behind a series that is working harder to improve
itself than to delude itself.

Take the red pill, IRL. You've needed it for years.

BitterB wrote:

from a SPEEDTV.com editorial
http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/34678/

Help the IRL to Understand We Don't Believe the Hype. This one's
rather frustrating-it could require a wish, a hope, and a prayer.

We've been told for a few years now that all's fine, and that low car
counts aren't a problem. Who'd want 26 cars at an IRL race, after all?
We've also been told that the tradition of 33 starters at Indy isn't a
prerequisite. Oh really.

Remember the part of The Matrix where Neo's given the option of
swallowing either the red or the blue pill? The blue pill would return
him to his blissful, fabricated, and force-fed life, whereas the red
pill would open his eyes to real problems of the world?

I'm tired of the IRL offering up truckloads of the blue pill. I want
the red pill for once. My wish is to make the IRL take the red pill

too. They need to see that years of offering fans the bare minimum of
cars or forward thinking will no longer cut it. Old cars, prohibitive
budgets, and a dim forecast for entrants to attract new sponsors will
keep new teams from appearing.

Same goes with the IRL's approach and regard for Indy. What's driven
down car counts for regular IRL events has also pulled Indy entries
down. The drama of the 'Month of May' has been replaced by the 'Day of
May.' Who'd tune into a month of practice and qualifying if all but
two of the entrants are guaranteed to make the race? The only drama
these days is between lap 1 to 200 on race day. 35 cars *battling* for
33 starting spots isn't actually a battle, IRL. It's natural
selection.

If there's a lesson for the IRL to be learned by peering over the
fence, it might be that their competitors at ChampCar have revamped
their entire approach to make it easier and more viable for their
teams to not just survive, but to thrive and expand.

Granted, ChampCar has few stars yet lots of cars; the IRL has some
stars and few cars. This is a good point to mention that most people
want more from their Indycar racing than just knowing Danica Patrick
or Ashley Judd's husband are in the field--maybe new fans and sponsors
would prefer to get behind a series that is working harder to improve
itself than to delude itself.

Take the red pill, IRL. You've needed it for years.

Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings. Too bad the
writer has exposed himself in his writings. The remarks by the writers
has shown he suffers from the same denial that so many ccws fans suffer
from. I loved the portion of the article where he was speaking of the
Koni challenges the series lack of TV coverage. Especially when he says
the following

"If ChampCar could spend 2004 on SpikeTV as they sought a better TV
package, I'm sure something similar can be arranged for Koni Challenge
on a similar cable outlet."

What he fails to realize is that Spike is one of the largest cable
stations there is. It's coverage area is almost as large as ESPN and is
larger than ESPN2, where most likely the majority of the ccws events
will be shown. For a period of around 5 years the number 1 show on
cable was on Spike TV. At the same time the ccws was getting 0.1s and
0.2s on the same network. If the writer actually knew what he was
talking about he would know these facts. Unfortunately he was just
interesting in trying to take the attention away from the Miller
article and it didn't matter if facts got in the way or not.

ncrdbl1 wrote:

Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.

Do you have any evidence that this story was planted or subsidized by
CCWS?

ncrdbl1 wrote:

Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.

Pleae provide credible linkage and backup for that speculation.


Too bad the

writer has exposed himself in his writings.

Is the writer on the CCWS payroll? Please provide proof of this. A
simple internet link to the facts will suffice.


The remarks by the writers

has shown he suffers from the same denial that so many ccws fans suffer
from. I loved the portion of the article where he was speaking of the
Koni challenges the series lack of TV coverage. Especially when he says
the following

"If ChampCar could spend 2004 on SpikeTV as they sought a better TV
package, I'm sure something similar can be arranged for Koni Challenge
on a similar cable outlet."

What he fails to realize is that Spike is one of the largest cable
stations there is. It's coverage area is almost as large as ESPN and is
larger than ESPN2, where most likely the majority of the ccws events
will be shown.

Please provide a credible reference for this information. Focus on 2004
Spike vs. ESPN vs. ESPN2 ratings prove your statement.



For a period of around 5 years the number 1 show on

cable was on Spike TV.

Are you saying that Spike was more popular than ESPN for 5 years? Are
you saying that 5 years ago Spike had a more popular show? Are you
sayng that a show that was on Spike was more popular at a particular
viewing time that a show on ESPN at the same or different viewing time.
Please provide credible references and further information. Please be
very specific.

Note that "Spike" did not exist 5 years ago.

Also note that the IRL is also on ESPN. It will be interesting to see
which series gets the higher ratings and provides the better exposure
value for its sponsors.

At the same time the ccws was getting 0.1s and

0.2s on the same network. If the writer actually knew what he was
talking about he would know these facts. Unfortunately he was just
interesting in trying to take the attention away from the Miller
article and it didn't matter if facts got in the way or not.

Looks like the two are completely independent of each other. What was
said is actually the same thing that has been said for about 11 years
with a few updates. How are you making that linkage?

So are you that out of touch with reporting or just unable to follow
events for the last 11 years or so.

Are you even 11 years old yet?

scottscottscott wrote:

ncrdbl1 wrote:


Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.


Do you have any evidence that this story was planted or subsidized by
CCWS?

He made a lot of statements in the context of facts. Its HIGHLY
doubtful that he can prove any of his trolls.

But lets not rush into it. He's digging an incredibly deep hole from
which he will probably not be able to climb out. He'll be buried in his
own lack of credibility.

scottscottscott wrote:

ncrdbl1 wrote:

Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.

Do you have any evidence that this story was planted or subsidized by
CCWS?

Other than the same talking points written in other pro CCWS articles,
no I cannot officially say it was. But there are a lot of things that
are known to happen that are not official. The misinformation does
follow the same pattern as others propaganda stories. I know it saddens
you that Miller let sensitive material get out to the public and it
must really sadden you that the confirmed car counts for each show the
CCWS lagging WAY behind the IRL's 18 confirmed car/driver combos with
13 having signed sponsorship deals. Depending on how everything shakes
out the grid at homestead could be between 19-23 cars. With as many as
19-21 of those running the full season.

On Jan 10, 4:26*pm, xorbit <xor... (AT) nospam (DOT) ca> wrote:

ncrdbl1 wrote:

Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.Pleae provide credible linkage and backup for that speculation.

Too bad the

writer has exposed himself in his writings.Is the writer on the CCWS payroll? *Please provide proof of this. *A
simple internet link to the facts will suffice.

The remarks by the writers

has shown he suffers from the same denial that so many ccws fans suffer
from. I loved the portion of the article where he was speaking of the
Koni challenges the series lack of TV coverage. Especially when he says
the following

*"If ChampCar could spend 2004 on SpikeTV as they sought a better TV
package, I'm sure something similar can be arranged for Koni Challenge
on a similar cable outlet."

*What he fails to realize is that Spike is one of the largest cable
stations there is. It's coverage area is almost as large as ESPN and is
larger than ESPN2, where most likely the majority of the ccws events
will be shown.Please provide a credible reference for this information.*Focus on 2004
Spike vs. ESPN vs. ESPN2 ratings prove your statement.

For a period of around 5 years the number 1 show on

cable was on Spike TV.Are you saying that Spike was more popular than ESPN for 5 years? *Are
you saying that 5 years ago Spike had a more popular show? *Are you
sayng that a show that was on Spike was more popular at a particular
viewing time that a show on ESPN at the same or different viewing time.
* Please provide credible references and further information. *Pleasebe
very specific.

Note that "Spike" did not exist 5 years ago.

Also note that the IRL is also on ESPN. *It will be interesting to see
which series gets the higher ratings and provides the better exposure
value for its sponsors.

At the same time the ccws was getting 0.1s and

0.2s on the same network. If the writer actually knew what he was
talking about he would know these facts. Unfortunately he was just
interesting in trying to take the attention away from the Miller
article and it didn't matter if facts got in the way or not.Looks like the two are completely independent of each other. *What was
said is actually the same thing that has been said for about 11 years
with a few updates. *How are you making that linkage?

So are you that out of touch with reporting or just unable to follow
events for the last 11 years or so.

Are you even 11 years old yet?

Sheesh are you sure you are not on something. The network known as
spike today DID exist 5 years ago. It is the old Nashville network that
after a couple of name changes was finally renamed Spike after it was
purchased from Gaylord Entertainment. It is still on almost every basic
cable outlet today as it was when it was the Nashville network. The
network first went on the air March 7th 1983. It is one of the networks
that brought NASCAR Cup racing to the entire USA. The network was in
the top 10 of all cable networks in 2005 with coverage in approx 88.1
million households. The top cable network in 2005 was the Discovery
Channel with 89.7 million households. So do not give me the "CCWS' bad
ratings were due to the network" bullcrap when the network the ccws was
on was only 1.6 million households off the top network in the USA and
it's primary programing focus was on the young male 17-25

Wow, that's a lot of information.

Do you have a source, or is just something that you think must be true?

ncrdbl1 wrote:

scottscottscott wrote:

ncrdbl1 wrote:


Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.

Do you have any evidence that this story was planted or subsidized by
CCWS?


Other than the same talking points written in other pro CCWS articles,
no I cannot officially say it was.

Then why comment unless you're trolling?


But there are a lot of things that

are known to happen that are not official.

What are they? Specify in detail.


The misinformation does

follow the same pattern as others propaganda stories.

What pattern? Please provide details and references to support your
statement.

If you can't prove your statements as facts, then you're just trolling
and have 0 (zero, nada, absolutely no) credibility.

ncrdbl1 wrote:

On Jan 10, 4:26?pm, xorbit <xor... (AT) nospam (DOT) ca> wrote:

ncrdbl1 wrote:


Very nice job by the ccws pr department to get this one oout so soon
after the Miller article exposed the ccws short comings.Pleae provide credible linkage and backup for that speculation.

Too bad the


writer has exposed himself in his writings.Is the writer on the CCWS payroll? ?Please provide proof of this. ?A

simple internet link to the facts will suffice.

The remarks by the writers


has shown he suffers from the same denial that so many ccws fans suffer
from. I loved the portion of the article where he was speaking of the
Koni challenges the series lack of TV coverage. Especially when he says
the following

?"If ChampCar could spend 2004 on SpikeTV as they sought a better TV
package, I'm sure something similar can be arranged for Koni Challenge
on a similar cable outlet."

?What he fails to realize is that Spike is one of the largest cable
stations there is. It's coverage area is almost as large as ESPN and is
larger than ESPN2, where most likely the majority of the ccws events
will be shown.Please provide a credible reference for this information. ?Focus on 2004

Spike vs. ESPN vs. ESPN2 ratings prove your statement.

For a period of around 5 years the number 1 show on


cable was on Spike TV.Are you saying that Spike was more popular than ESPN for 5 years? ?Are

you saying that 5 years ago Spike had a more popular show? ?Are you
sayng that a show that was on Spike was more popular at a particular
viewing time that a show on ESPN at the same or different viewing time.
? Please provide credible references and further information. ?Please be
very specific.

Note that "Spike" did not exist 5 years ago.

Also note that the IRL is also on ESPN. ?It will be interesting to see
which series gets the higher ratings and provides the better exposure
value for its sponsors.

At the same time the ccws was getting 0.1s and


0.2s on the same network. If the writer actually knew what he was
talking about he would know these facts. Unfortunately he was just
interesting in trying to take the attention away from the Miller
article and it didn't matter if facts got in the way or not.Looks like the two are completely independent of each other. ?What was

said is actually the same thing that has been said for about 11 years
with a few updates. ?How are you making that linkage?

So are you that out of touch with reporting or just unable to follow
events for the last 11 years or so.

Are you even 11 years old yet?


Sheesh are you sure you are not on something.

Me on something? You're the one drinking all the Kool-aid.

The network known as
spike today DID exist 5 years ago. It is the old Nashville network that
after a couple of name changes was finally renamed Spike after it was
purchased from Gaylord Entertainment.

But you said it was "Spike" so you're wrong again. You admit that Spike
didn't even exist 5 years ago.


It is still on almost every basic

cable outlet today as it was when it was the Nashville network. The
network first went on the air March 7th 1983. It is one of the networks
that brought NASCAR Cup racing to the entire USA. The network was in
the top 10 of all cable networks in 2005 with coverage in approx 88.1
million households. The top cable network in 2005 was the Discovery
Channel with 89.7 million households. So do not give me the "CCWS' bad
ratings were due to the network" bullcrap when the network the ccws was
on was only 1.6 million households off the top network in the USA and
it's primary programing focus was on the young male 17-25

I didn't say anything of the kind about bad network ratings - you did.
You're obviously drinking too much of the Kool-aid. Clouding your thinking.

You failed to prove that it was more popular than ESPN or ESPN2 by
providing references.

So you're just a full of shit troll.

But I'll keep you dancing on the string just for laughs.