NASCAR mailbag: Why New Hampshire losing a Cup Series race to Las Vegas makes sense

Usually SB Nation’s mailbag touches on a variety of topics, but this is no such week. The announcement that Las Vegas Motor Speedway was gaining a race at the expense of New Hampshire not surprisingly provoked fervent reactions from readers, many of whom were not in favor of the move.

If you have a future mailbag question, email jordanmbianchi@gmail.com.

New Hampshire losing a date doesn’t bother me, but why not add a short track or a road course instead of another boring mile-and-half track? Didn’t SMI have better options than another race on track the schedule already has too many of?
- Tom

To the chagrin of many fans and many within the industry, Speedway Motorsports Inc. taking one of New Hampshire’s two Cup Series race weekends and moving it to a short track or road course simply wasn’t an option.

Through the sanctioning agreement NASCAR negotiated with its tracks in 2015, SMI is essentially locked into having 12 races per season through 2020 (not including the All-Star Race), and SMI has discretion how it disperses those dates among its tracks. Before recent developments, the company had elected to have Las Vegas, Atlanta Motor Speedway, Kentucky Speedway, and Sonoma Raceway each host a single race, with New Hampshire, Bristol Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, and Texas Motor Speedway have two dates apiece.

This meant once SMI executives decided the financial considerations were too great for Las Vegas not to host two Cup races annually, it either needed to buy a date from a track it didn’t own or rearrange its distribution. Buying a date wasn’t plausible because there aren’t any tracks looking to sell, which left only the second option. And if you take a look at the kinds of tracks under the SMI umbrella, you’ll notice Bristol is the only short track and Sonoma the only road course, and additional races at either venue is not realistic.

You’re not going to get any argument that the schedule needs greater variety. Too many races take place on intermediate ovals, and there is a noticeable lack of short tracks and road courses — particularly in the 10-race playoffs. Unfortunately, because NASCAR doesn’t want to expand beyond 38 races a year (36 points, two non-points), the sanctioning agreement, and a lack of short tracks with the infrastructure required to host a premier division race — SAFER barriers, suites, other amenities, etc. — means the Cup schedule is largely what it is even though the sport would be best served by a complete revamping.

SMI taking a race away from New Hampshire so Las Vegas can have two it doesn’t deserve is basically a big F-U to all the NASCAR fans in New England. This region is deserving of two Cup races and I don’t understand why NASCAR and SMI don’t realize this? Boston is only 90 minutes away and both races are well attended.
- Sandy

Right or wrong, ultimately the decision is about SMI’s bottom line and the truth is New Hampshire, while popular among a contingent of fans, has struggled recently selling tickets and attracting title sponsorship for both its races. That’s not a recipe for long term viability when another track within its portfolio is not only continuing to draw good-sized crowds, but also has a community willing to invest $2.5 million a year to promote the events.

Yes, there is a loyal following of race fans within the New England area. Yes, New Hampshire serves the Boston market, located approximately 90 minutes away. And no, the schedule doesn’t need yet another 1.5-mile track.

All that said, from SMI’s perspective it’s not hard to see why this decision was made — as unpopular as it may be. Because sentiment aside, the necessary support wasn’t there to justify New Hampshire’s two races compared to only one at Las Vegas.

The whole Cup schedule confuses me. How do tracks like Dover keep both its races when a great track like Iowa [Speedway] can’t get one race? Why cannot NASCAR just take a race away from one track and give it to another?
- Sam

Yanking Cup races away from tracks is not how NASCAR operates for legal, economical, and professional reasons. Its longstanding policy is once a track is granted a Cup date it has that date every year provided the promoter remains committed to spending money and keeps the facility up to acceptable standards. And it’s important to note, NASCAR technically doesn’t own any of the 23 tracks its top division competes on and the sanctioning agreement prohibits such maneuvering.

But were NASCAR to pull a race from one track it didn’t own like Sam suggests and give it to another, an antitrust lawsuit would assuredly result. Certainly if the track receiving the date were Iowa, which is owned by International Speedway Corp., whose CEO, Lesa France Kennedy, also co-owns NASCAR. A legal quagmire and a stark conflict of interest NASCAR understandably wants to avoid.

Then there is the matter of loyalty. Both Dover International Speedway and Pocono Raceway entered the sport during a time when NASCAR was nowhere near as popular as it is now and lacked venues outside the southeast corridor wanting to host big-time stock car racing. Both tracks became devoted allies of Bill France Sr. and Bill France Jr. during NASCAR’s growth from a niche sport into a national entity, support that was rewarded with Dover and Pocono each receiving two races apiece on the schedule.

That’s not to say Dover and Pocono are forever locked into its two races every season. But if there is a reduction it will be due to the track deciding to divest those dates, not NASCAR’s doing.

The idea seems to be that New Hampshire should’ve never had two races to begin with and when it got a second race all it did was draw people away from the July weekend. My question is, can’t the same thing happen to Las Vegas? I don’t get how everyone thinks this is a slam dunk move. Very easily, the same thing could eventually happen to Vegas that happened to New Hampshire.
- Ron

As many tracks have discovered having two Cup Series dates each season isn’t always a positive. Something Auto Club Speedway learned the hard way when the addition of a second race in the mid-2000s proved unsuccessful and diminished its crowd to the point ISC had little recourse but to shift the second weekend to Kansas Speedway seven years later.

Overexposure is a lesson Las Vegas Motor Speedway must be mindful of, but as opposed to other tracks it has several factors working in its favor. Predominantly, Las Vegas is a destination city with a lot to offer beyond the track.

Whether it’s the casinos, shows, or whatnot, there isn’t a shortage of entertainment options, especially compared to other NASCAR tracks. Hotels and airfare can also be found for reasonably cheap, offsetting some of the costs of attending a race. All of which the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority is banking on to make the new September NASCAR weekend successful.

And a guaranteed $2.5 million from the LVCVA for the next seven years is a benefit to SMI. Money that will help cover any losses incurred by potentially spreading its fan base too thin.