Mandatory Caution?

One thing NASCAR has shown is that they are willing to listen to their fans. Bruton Smith, and Bristol Motorspeedway listened to fans requests after the spring race and reconfigured the track to take it back to what it was prior to its latest repave. Not long after that Smith had an idea that should not be listened to by anyone.

The idea was a mandatory caution in the late stages of a race. The thinking was that it would make the races more exciting at the end, much like late time outs in stick-and-ball sports do. Problem is, he's wrong in that thinking. Just because a basketball team calls a time out late in game doesn't mean the score instantly changes and brings them back into a game.

The big issue I have with this idea isn't so much the thought it tricks up the racing, but that it essentially makes the previous laps run somewhat meaningless. Look at it this way, if we are watching Dale Earnhardt Jr. run away with the race at Michigan, and this so-called mandatory caution comes out is it fair to Dale Jr. that he has to relinquish that large lead? It is the same as saying that at the 2:00 warning of an NFL game never mind that the Patriots had a three touchdown lead, it's now a one field goal game.

A moot point really since most of NASCAR nation, and NASCAR themselves have dismissed this idea at the instant it was suggested. But it falls in line with a slew of ideas I hear listening to the NASCAR station on SiriusXM. Everyone wants to trick up the racing to make it exciting. Let's give championship points for leading halfway, give drivers "mulligans" in the Chase for bad races, and let's not get into the start-and-park debate.

When I watch a football game I know there is a chance it could be a great game, and a good chance it could be a blow out. Same with hockey, or baseball. I also know when I sit down to watch a race the winner may win without drama like Dale Jr did at Michigan. But I also know that there's a chance I might see what we saw at Watkins Glen with Brad Keselowski and Marcos Ambros.

While NASCAR is hoping for closer racing with the "Gen-6" car, it is naive to think that every race on the schedule needs to come down to two or three cars beating and banging to the finish line because it just doesn't happen. As well finishes should not be manufactured by trick rules. Just because Greg Biffle was running away with the spring Texas race doesn't mean there wasn't excitement coming from the rest of the field.

Many complain they get bored with the middle of the race. Their answer, shorten the races. Well there's still a middle of the race. And good fans know there are turning points in the middle of races. Points where you say, "remember that moment at the end".  Many times in 2012 I watched a driver have handling issues, make a mistake, or issues on pit road that put them back in the pack. A number of times I watched those drivers work their way back up through the field. Biggest example may be the fall Kansas race when Jimmie Johnson spun  and hit the wall mid-race. The work on pit road to get him back on the track, then his work to get into the top 10 would have been the focal point of his season had he won the championship. Everyone would have looked back on that race and pointed to that moment.

What has to be remembered is it's a race, no different to a marathon like the 100m dash is no different to an NHRA drag race. Just because we have blowouts in football we aren't begging the NFL to shorten the game, and trick it up. Why must we trick up NASCAR?