NASCAR mailbag: The pros and cons of NASCAR’s record TV contract

Each week, SB Nation’s NASCAR reporter Jordan Bianchi answers your questions about the latest news and happenings within the sport. If you have a future mailbag question, email jordanmbianchi@gmail.com.

There’s no disputing that Kyle Larson can drive, but does the future number of races he wins have more to do with Chip Ganassi Racing and whether it can build fast cars that allows him to shine?

--Barry

Yes and yes. A large factor in whether Larson reaches his ceiling as a driver is if Chip Ganassi Racing can continue providing him with equipment that can compete against and beat the likes of Joe Gibbs Racing, Team Penske, and Hendrick Motorsports. No matter how great a driver may be, they can only do so much with substandard equipment — a primary reason why Larson has only won twice in 116 Cup Series starts.

Absolutely, part of Larson’s recent surge can be traced to his maturation as driver, someone who’s learned from his mistakes and has a better understanding of the commitment it takes to be a top-flight driver. But that he has an 8.5 average finish over the last 18 races (beginning with Michigan International Speedway in August, the site of his first series win) coincides with CGR also making significant performance gains.

It’s why if Larson ultimately evolves into this generation’s Jeff Gordon or Tony Stewart, the two drivers he’s most compared to, it will be because CGR finds the consistency it’s often lacked and asserts itself alongside the sport’s upper-echelon organizations. Or, Larson will have moved to a team that is already well established atop the NASCAR hierarchy where there’s little doubt regarding if the cars are fast enough to win.

I believe the current decline (or lack of incline) and potential debilitation of NASCAR is two-pronged:

1) The current TV deal, which injected tons of money that has disguised an otherwise diminished entity. With ratings at near all-time lows, the next TV deal will only be a small percentage of the current deal.

2) Five-year track deals, coupled with [NASCAR’s] refusal to get away from big tracks and towards shorter tracks, is only driving away a fan base that may not come back after several years of the same lackluster racing.

Your thoughts?

--Shawn

During NASCAR’s continued battle with eroding television ratings, flat attendance, and a schedule badly needing a makeover, the overall state of the sport has become a popular topic to dissect, which SB Nation has tackled in-depth many times in the weekly mailbag and in features.

But specific to the first part of your question, NASCAR’s current television deal presents both pros and cons. The positive is NASCAR is generating a record $6.8 billion from its contracts with Fox Sports and NBC Sports. Revenue that is acting as a stabilizer as the sanctioning body, teams, and tracks adjust and attempt to counteract the general public’s diminishing interest in major-league stock car racing.

The negative to the record TV deals is the caveat that Fox and NBC are paying a sizable sum because they want NASCAR as a beachhead programming on their lesser channels, FS1 and NBCSN, which still aren’t available in many homes. Although not solely responsible for the ratings decline — this was happening when Cup races were airing on ABC and ESPN — it is a contributing factor to why ratings are hitting new lows on an almost weekly basis. And it also hasn’t helped that cord cutting is becoming more prevalent, something all sports are trying to combat by focusing more on streaming and other newer avenues to consume content.

How this impacts NASCAR’s next TV contract is still to be determined, and with neither contract expiring until 2023 it’s difficult to definitively say. Six years from now there’s an excellent chance conventional ways to watch games/races will be obsolete, and what that means for monies companies are willing to spend is unknown.

What is undeniable is that before then, NASCAR must address a product that isn’t compelling fans to pay attention — be it in person or watching at home.

Fans are frustrated with what they believe is a schedule filled with too many intermediate speedways that don’t offer great racing and disenchanted that their calls for additional short tracks have gone unanswered. And despite format changes and a rules package conceptualized to juice the on-track product, it is obvious more tweaks are needed as the racing, while better, is still not to an acceptable standard.

I saw you, Jeff [Gluck] and Nate [Ryan] tweeting about the concerts NASCAR has had before races this season and I’m not disagreeing with what you guys were saying that the names weren’t all that exciting. But I am wondering if this really a big deal in the grand scheme of things?

--Marie

The backstory here is the Circuit of Americas announced Wednesday Justin Timberlake would be playing a concert at the track on the weekend of its Formula One race, one year after bringing in Taylor Swift as a headliner, who drew a reported crowd of 80,000. This is in contrast to NASCAR having Lady Antebellum (Daytona), Josh Turner (Atlanta), and Colt Ford (Phoenix) all perform concerts prior to Cup Series races this season.

Now, is this a big deal? On the micro, no, NASCAR has bigger issues to concern itself with as it tries to rebound. It does, however, encapsulate the juxtaposition where NASCAR is admittedly trying to court a younger demographic, yet instead of having pop acts who might attract the attention of millennials, continues with musical acts targeting an older demo.

Imagine for a second if NASCAR had Timberlake perform before the Daytona 500 or even on the same weekend, think that would’ve garnered some headlines and mainstream media attention? Or even maybe enticed some folks who otherwise were on the fence about purchasing a ticket?

That doesn’t mean NASCAR needs a big name for every race. Nor is it a surefire way to boost attendance. But it can and should do better on this front as any efforts certainly cannot hurt.