Browse > Home / Evernham Motorsports, Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates, Gillett Evernham Motorsports, Hendrick Motorsports, NASCAR Bidness, Richard Childress Racing, Robert Yates Racing, Roush Racing, Turn 2 posts / Maybe Kyle Busch Just Got Loose in Turn 3

Maybe Kyle Busch Just Got Loose in Turn 3

User Avatar

by Charlie Turner

I'm Charlie Turner co-host of the syndicated, mostly NASCAR radio show On Pit Row. Thanks for stopping by OnPitRow.com and the Bench Racing with Steve and Charlie blog. Oh yeah, Steve is an idiot. Follow me on Twitter @onpitrow

May 9, 2008 9:52 am CDT 5 Comments

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


Maybe Kyle Busch just got Loose in Turn 3 Do you think that “the incident” at Richmond International Raceway Saturday night was evidence of the “vengeance of the Shrub”?  After-all, Dale Earnhardt Jr did spin out of the lead because of contact with the guy who used to have his seat at Hendrick Motorsports. 

Just about everybody that we have talked to in the last week - from Larry McReynolds to Joey Logano say that they think this was a racing deal.  Plain fact.  I just can’t find the stones to argue that.

I may not agree with Tim Zaegel or Bruce Simmons though, as we each give our opinions on three separate, NASCAR related topics in this week’s Loose In Turn 3 go-round.  Here’s my question of the week.

Should NASCAR drop the “ruse” of team owners being allowed only four Cup teams?

Charlie:  First, you have to believe that the present rule is a false one. The rule was written with a real intent to limit the size and power of the super-team organizations.  The advent of satellite teams for the Hendrick, Gibbs and Roush’s of the NASCAR world has effectively circumvented the spirit, if not the actual law, of the original ruling.  That said, there is still a limiting effect on the big teams which gives an impression that teams like Hall of Fame Racing and Yates Racing are maintaining independence.  I say let the ruse continue.

Bruce:  I think it’s ridiculous that they pretend to have a team limit.  First, owners, their wives, their kids, heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone’s dog shows up as an owner some day.  Now that we have satellite teams forming with partnerships, it’s getting even more complicated.  (I’ll avoid the ridiculous term here for the moment)  So if a team has a limit, is there a limit to how many satellite teams a team can have a team under with a team? (Look out Dr Seuss)

TZ:  I think that between the both of you, you two hit the nail on the head on this topic.  There is one thing Charlie said though, about Yates Racing maintaining independence, because they would actually be involved in the basis of my argument on this.  Yates is the beneficiary of Roush-Fenway in so many ways, it’s not even funny.  Roush plays a huge role in their engines, they’ve been trying to help them lock on some sponsorship deals, and in 2010, they’ll probably be handing them a driver.  To answer the question though, not only should they “continue the ruse” as Charlie put it, but I would actually like to see them limit it to three teams - that’ll never happen though.

There you have it.  That’s what we think.  What do you think?

Continue the discussion with Tim’s post:

Do you think that the Nationwide Series will ever truly develop its own identity and if so, what will it be?

Bruce’s post asks for comment on this:

Denny Hamlin is having the worst luck in the world.

Photo credit: Icon Sports Media, Inc.

Filed under: Evernham Motorsports, Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates, Gillett Evernham Motorsports, Hendrick Motorsports, NASCAR Bidness, Richard Childress Racing, Robert Yates Racing, Roush Racing, Turn 2 posts 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Comments

5 Responses to “Maybe Kyle Busch Just Got Loose in Turn 3”

  1. marc on May 9th, 2008 1:45 pm

    I tend to go with TZ’s answer.

    When team limits were first announced, and in NASCAR typical fashion floated with few details, my first thought was the limit would be three teams.

    After (falsely) gauging public opinion they announced the limit would be four teams and I said WHY BOTHER. With the multi-car teams in existence then a limit of four still makes up at least 20 in a field of 43.

  2. okla21fan on May 9th, 2008 2:45 pm

    one word to solve this issue

    ‘Franchising’

  3. Loose in Turn 3 (5/09/08) on May 9th, 2008 5:17 pm

    [...] The Rest of the Discussion: - What’s Your Take On Denny Hamlin’s Recent Bad Luck? - Should NASCAR drop the “ruse” of team owners only being allowed four Cup teams? [...]

  4. User Avatar Marc on May 9th, 2008 6:42 pm

    One word for okla21fan:

    (and to quote a famous WW2 General: NUTS!)

    Setting aside for the moment NASCAR would never change the business model they currently run under, is this question: How has franchising worked in other sports?

    It hasn’t, at least not in the way people think it will help NASCAR.

    In the MLB despite the luxury tax that supposedly would even the playing field hasn’t, the same sorry sad sack teams that are on the bottom rung of the competitive ladder remain there for the most part.

    Generally the same can be said of the NHL and NBA, with few exceptions of short duration the losers have stayed losers.

    The only consistent formula to winning is employing competent management and franchising does nothing to assist that effort.

  5. Sports Guru on May 12th, 2008 11:25 pm

    [...] The Rest of the Discussion: - What’s Your Take On Denny Hamlin’s Recent Bad Luck? - Should NASCAR drop the “ruse” of team owners only being allowed four Cup teams? [...]

Got something to say?

Did you know you can log in with your Thunder Lounge account, and have your personal avatar and site link available when you comment at On Pit Row?

Don't have an account yet? Sign-up for free.





Powered by WP Hashcash

March Madness

Play the Rattles from the Catch Can contest

Blogroll

Fantasy Sports Partners

Racing Websites

ON PIT ROW at RaceTalkRadio
Backstretch Boys: 30% Off New CD!
Jayski's: See what the buzz is about.

We've got your game.

Advertisement