Is there parity in NASCAR or is it just a theory?

By Mike Smith (contact)

Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 | 8:45 p.m.

When is the last time that an underdog won a Sprint Cup race?

If you look at the statistics from the past three years you’ll see that there aren’t too many instances where a driver won a race who also wasn’t with one of the powerhouse teams.

In 2006 those big teams ruled the season. The top drivers from Hendrick Motorsports, Roush Fenway Racing, DEI, Joe Gibbs Racing and Gillett Evernham Motorsports visited victory lane the most. The one underdog who won a race was Brian Vickers, but that really doesn’t count since he was driving for Hendrick at the time.

In 2007 the story was basically the same. But there were a few wins by drivers who aren’t frequently in victory lane. Casey Mears, Martin Truex, Clint Bowyer and Jamie McMurray all won that year, but they weren’t driving for second-tier, underfinanced racing organizations. Although he had a storied racing career before NASCAR, I would consider the win by Juan Montoya in 2007 as an underdog victory since he wasn’t with a team I would think of as top-tier.

This year has mostly been a battle, once again, between the big teams of Joe Gibbs Racing, Roush Fenway Racing and Hendrick Motorsports.

What does this say about NASCAR’s philosophy regarding parity?

NASCAR tightly controls the mechanical areas of the racecars to, in theory, make driver ability more crucial than a mechanical advantage. NASCAR hopes that would give as many drivers as possible a chance of winning.

But that doesn’t seem to be working because the one variable that’s not controlled by NASCAR is money.

The teams with the big money still have the advantage since they can hire more people, purchase the latest testing equipment, and operate more teams that produce more technical information. This allows the well-financed teams to better manipulate the areas of the racecar where NASCAR still allows for mechanical tinkering. And with that window for tinkering becoming smaller as a result of NASCAR’s strict rules (especially with the COT), it’s money that allows a team to be sophisticated enough to manipulate these areas. It’s a classic situation of the haves and the have-nots, and we all know who rises to the top is that situation.

So what should be done about this? A cap on spending? Further limits on the number of teams an organization can field? Or is it time to equalize the spending by spreading around a good chunk of the television revenue to the teams? (Am I sounding like a socialist?) I think further limits on the number of teams an organization can field would be a good start.

If the sport is serious about parity, then one or all of these examples have to be put on the table.

This week's StockcarToon

Purchase your copy of "Nuts for Racing"