What Do You Value?

Values are a tricky and controversial subject.  The 2012 Presidential Election is a perfect example.  This is a racing blog not a political site which is probably a good thing; I don’t need to alienate any more readers than I already have.  There is a point to talking about values, however.  In racing terms values are what a fan looks for in racing.  Do they value parity and close racing or do they value purity and innovation?  Should the cars be the stars or should it be the drivers?  These types of questions and views are seen in every form of racing from NASCAR to MotoGP, but nowhere in the racing world are conflicting values seen more clearly than in the Izod Indycar series.   From the Sarah Fisher engine controversy to the future direction of the schedule conflicting values among fans are crystal clear.

Engines for Sarah. Just saying.

The reason for Indycar’s value conflict is obvious.  Indycar attracts interest from a diverse group of people that includes NASCAR, USAC, Indy 500, F1, and ALMS/24 Hours of Le Mans fans.  American and international race fans are brought together in a way that often pits them head to head.  Overall fans from Europe tend to want to see a Formula One style series, or maybe a 24 Hours of Le Mans style series.  American Champcar fans and ALMS fans also side with them. On the other hand American’s generally prefer a NASCAR/USAC style series.  Do you want American Indy Lights Champion Joseph Newgarden or Formula One Reject and GP2 winner Luca Filippe to get an engine and thus a ride instead?

Values in racing themselves can generally be broken down like this: Parity vs. Purity.  That’s the crux of the debate.  The other auxiliary issues all come down to the idea of parity and purity.  Multiple winning teams vs. watching the “best team win” is a classic example.  Innovation vs. close racing.  In Indycar it’s American drivers vs. having the “best of the best” (or, as some would argue, random F1 rejects).  The oval/road course debate comes down to parity/purity as many so called “purists” turn their nose up at Texas and Kentucky.  The engine debate is another perfect example of the conflicting viewpoints.  Parity supporters want to see Fisher get an engine while Purity supporter want the “market” to determine who get’s what engines.

Analogy

In fact parity vs. purity parallel politics perfectly.  The debate over a stronger or weaker government sounds an awful lot like the debate over a more pure or equal racing series.  Think about it; racing fans from the purity standpoint want less rules while parity fans generally support stronger sanctioning bodies with bigger rule-books and more regulations.  One interesting anecdote I’ve noticed is many fans who are more Conservative dislike the idea of TEAM Money or revenue sharing because it seems like “socialism.”

Of course it’s not an all or nothing issue.  There are level’s of parity or purity that each fan wants to see out of their racing.  It’s pretty obvious that I stand on the parity side, but I”m not as far down that side as Eddie Gossange of Texas Motor Speedway.  Most racing purists want to see at least some rules and regulations so that races are won by 10 laps.  I may be a racing parity supporter but that doesn’t mean I want to see competition cautions or things like the Chase for the Sprint Cup.

A Parity based series

Neither side is 100% right or wrong; however I do think the parity side is more appealing to more people.  Especially in the United States.  Looking at other sports series in the US, both racing (NASCAR) and stick and ball (NFL,NHL,NBA,NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, MLB) generally stick towards the parity side.  Look at the salary caps and revenue sharing.  Overall fans in America have shown a lot more love and support for parity series than purity based series.  Not only is a parity based series what I would prefer; it’s also what, in my editorial opinion, is going to sell better to fans in America.  Something to think about when discussing Indycar.

All of that said I think some mid ground is possible.  Moderation and compromise and all of that.  The World Superbike Series shows that a racing series can have purity (no caution flags, multiple manufacturer with distinct equipment) yet also manages to have fairly large fields with a fair amount of competitive riders.  If only we could bottle it’s magic and give a little injection into every other racing series.   Indycar is somewhat tricky because of how distinct the viewpoints are.  Compromise should be possible as long as a 50-50 balance is maintained.  Considering the demise of Champcar that should be self-evident but it’s not.  Improving the quality of road courses would help immensely.  As my WSBK love indicates I’m not against all road racing, just boring road racing.  A lot more people would be open to the road and street courses if it didn’t result in horrifically boring races where the top five at the start of the race are the same top five at the end. Back on topic…

Parity and Purity Meet in the World Superbike Series

The debate over what direction racing series should take come up all the time.  It all comes down to what people want to see out of their racing.  Why someone watches racing in the first place?  Do you want to see unpredictability or see perfection?  I’ll be honest I desire and demand unpredictability.  I have zero interest in watching a race where I know with 99% certainty who’s going to win and I have no shame in admitting that.  Not everyone feels that way and that’s fine.  There is a mid ground and the goal of the sanctioning bodies should be to try and find that.  Both sides have their positive and negative aspects.  Too much purity can become boring while too much parity can turn a racing series into WWE on wheels.  Obviously fans aren’t going to watch a series that goes too far away from what they value in racing.  They’ll get nothing out of it.  Coming back to Indycar I really believe finding the moderate position is vital.   I don’t see how a series too focused on Purity is going to survive in the United States as anything more than a niche racing series with .3 ratings.  Taking a broader approach the middle ground makes sense for all racing series.  The “biggest tent” brings the most fans in and thus makes the series more attractive to sponsors and manufacturer.  Any series that can appeal to both purists and parity fans will draw a lot more fans than a series that draws only one or the other.