I’ve just read your editorial lambasting of the NHRA’s new Countdown to the Championship for the 4th or 5th time. In fact, I have it here in print so I can refer to it as I reply.

Your entire editorial focused on how the sponsors would react if one of their teams did not perform well enough throughout the season to make the Countdown. You told us how NASCAR sponsors were upset about the program and how they had structured their new sponsorship contracts to penalize teams failing to make the Chase. You seem certain that teams who do not qualify for the Countdown will see virtually no TV coverage during the Countdown even if their performance is incredible with late round appearance, track records and even a win or two in the last ten races. If I believed everything you wrote, I’d expect the teams who do not qualify for the Countdown to have no chance of maintaining any sponsorship or even remaining in the sport. Surely, you jest.

Racing is a performance-based business. The reason sponsors sign with a team and agree to a dollar amount is based primarily on performance. They know the teams who perform better week-in and week-out will receive more attention and they also know fans will better support those teams at the cash register. They will buy more souvenirs, they will buy the products their team represents. Why does Torco sponsor Competition Plus? Because they know you are a web-site considered to be among the best in the drag racing world. If your content faltered and your statistics dropped, maybe Torco would reconsider being associated with you as a major sponsor. That is exactly the nature of the sponsorship beast; either you perform or the sponsor finds someone who will.

Now, you are complaining because the Countdown would draw some attention from the teams who did not perform well enough throughout the season to be in the Top 8 of their eliminator when the last ten races begin. If I start a drag racing website today, do you think Torco should sponsor me at the same level they sponsor you? I bet not and I would agree. Sure, I’d love to have their funds but I know I have to earn them.

Your entire argument about sponsors assumes the press and sponsors have absolutely no regard for the fact that teams may have a run of bad luck or a period of time where they “lose the handle” and will thus drop them from sponsorships and coverage if they falter and don’t make the Countdown one year. I disagree. Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. were two of your examples. They both failed to make the Chase last year because, as admitted by them, they did not perform. I’m sure the sponsors were unhappy and I’m sure there were some serious discussions in the corporate boardrooms. Both teams made changes and both teams have had the “eye of the tiger” this year; their performance improved and it appears they will both make the Chase this year. Again, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

Using your ‘extrapolation’ for 2007, Tony Schumacher would not make the Countdown but would set the world on fire during the last ten races. Do you really think Tony would be ignored if he won races and set records during that time? No, he would not. Do you think he should receive the same coverage as the teams in the Countdown simply because of his performance in past years? I don’t. What happened last year stays in last year (yeah, I know that’s now a cliché but I couldn’t resist). Do you think Army would drop Tony’s team if he did not make the Countdown one year? No, they wouldn’t.

Also, remember that NASCAR’s Chase only includes 10 teams of the 43 teams that race each week. That’s a bit less than 25%. The NHRA Countdown would include 50% of a normal qualified field. Percentage-wise, the odds are much better for an NHRA team to make the playoffs than they are for a NASCAR team.

No, I’m not an apologist for NHRA. However, I’ve been a racer and I’ve been a track manager, etc. I’ve seen both sides of the fence and I think it’s easy to be an arm-chair promoter. I’ve heard your complaints, but I’ve not heard any of your own ideas. If you don’t have any, I think you at least owe NHRA the respect of seeing how this all plays out before you blast them as you have.

Thanks for a great website and the opportunity to respond.

Competitionplus.com editorial writer Jon Asher answers reader Allen Philips’ thoughtful response to last week’s “Up Front” column entitled “Always A Follower, Never A Leader” in Italics below:

ALLEN WROTE - Your entire editorial focused on how the sponsors would react if one of their teams did not perform well enough throughout the season to make the Countdown. You told us how NASCAR sponsors were upset about the program and how they had structured their new sponsorship contracts to penalize teams failing to make the Chase. You seem certain that teams who do not qualify for the Countdown will see virtually no TV coverage during the Countdown even if their performance is incredible with late round appearance, track records and even a win or two in the last ten races. If I believed everything you wrote, I’d expect the teams who do not qualify for the Countdown to have no chance of maintaining any sponsorship or even remaining in the sport. Surely, you jest.

We did not unequivocally say that teams failing to qualify for the Elite Eight would lose their sponsorship support, but it is possible that they could face financial penalties for failing to do so. We also didn’t state that non-qualifiers would get virtually no television coverage, but we do believe, based on the NASCAR model and experience, that such coverage may be extremely limited. It’s only natural that the championship contenders will receive the bulk of the available exposure.

ALLEN WROTE - Racing is a performance-based business. The reason sponsors sign with a team and agree to a dollar amount is based primarily on performance. They know the teams who perform better week-in and week-out will receive more attention and they also know fans will better support those teams at the cash register. They will buy more souvenirs, they will buy the products their team represents. Why does Torco sponsor Competition Plus? Because they know you are a web-site considered to be among the best in the drag racing world. If your content faltered and your statistics dropped, maybe Torco would reconsider being associated with you as a major sponsor. That is exactly the nature of the sponsorship beast; either you perform or the sponsor finds someone who will.

Mr. Phillips’ outline is only partially correct, because sponsors often get involved in motorsports for reasons other than increasing product sales. For many it’s an opportunity to expand their national brand name recognition and awareness, while for others the POWERade Series races provide an important opportunity for entertaining wholesalers and retailers or even company employees.

Also worth noting is a scenario from drag racing history. When Kenny Bernstein first signed Budweiser as a sponsor he was about as competitive as a pony in the Kentucky Derby. He went for months without qualifying to the point where some were slightly changing the then-Bud add to say, “Pretty soon this Bud’s going to be for someone else.” What those people failed to realize was that while failing on the track Bernstein was winning the exposure war by having his car featured in literally every magazine that covered drag racing. At the same time those magazines were ignoring race winners because they didn’t know how to approach the magazines with viable story ideas while Bernstein did. For Anheuser-Busch the exposure Bernstein orchestrated more than made up for his lack of performance on the track.

ALLEN WROTE - Now, you are complaining because the Countdown would draw some attention from the teams who did not perform well enough throughout the season to be in the Top 8 of their eliminator when the last ten races begin. If I start a drag racing website today, do you think Torco should sponsor me at the same level they sponsor you? I bet not and I would agree. Sure, I’d love to have their funds but I know I have to earn them.

Your entire argument about sponsors assumes the press and sponsors have absolutely no regard for the fact that teams may have a run of bad luck or a period of time where they “lose the handle” and will thus drop them from sponsorships and coverage if they falter and don’t make the Countdown one year. I disagree. Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. were two of your examples. They both failed to make the Chase last year because, as admitted by them, they did not perform. I’m sure the sponsors were unhappy and I’m sure there were some serious discussions in the corporate boardrooms. Both teams made changes and both teams have had the “eye of the tiger” this year; their performance improved and it appears they will both make the Chase this year. Again, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

We have no argument with that, but we do wonder: Were either or both of those teams given a financial ultimatum by their sponsors of Make the Chase or pay a sponsorship funding penalty?

ALLEN WROTE - Using your ‘extrapolation’ for 2007, Tony Schumacher would not make the Countdown but would set the world on fire during the last ten races. Do you really think Tony would be ignored if he won races and set records during that time? No, he would not. Do you think he should receive the same coverage as the teams in the Countdown simply because of his performance in past years? I don’t. What happened last year stays in last year (yeah, I know that’s now a cliché but I couldn’t resist). Do you think Army would drop Tony’s team if he did not make the Countdown one year? No, they wouldn’t.

We never suggested that someone winning the races would be ignored, only that, despite winning, the bulk of the coverage was still going to go to the championship contenders. Past performances will be irrelevant here. The only things that will count are the contenders and race winners. We have no idea what the Army would do if Schumacher missed the Elite Eight in 2007, and it’s certainly a stretch to think he’d be dropped like a hot potato if he missed it. We can’t think of a single sponsor that cold-hearted, but then again, the only ones who truly know the relationship between sponsor and team owner/driver are the ones whose names are on those contracts.

ALLEN WROTE - Also, remember that NASCAR’s Chase only includes 10 teams of the 43 teams that race each week. That’s a bit less than 25%. The NHRA Countdown would include 50% of a normal qualified field. Percentage-wise, the odds are much better for an NHRA team to make the playoffs than they are for a NASCAR team.

We strongly disagree with this contention because of the 43 Cup starters in each race the number of truly competitive teams capable of winning doesn’t run more than 15 deep, or close to 33 percent of the field. The same relative situation exists in NHRA. There may be 16 starters and slightly over 20 qualifying hopefuls at the beginning of the weekend, but just as it is in NASCAR, there are really only a moderate percentage of the teams competing actually capable of winning on a regular basis. Obviously, back markers in NASCAR sometimes win, just as the guy who manages to qualify 16th can sometimes manage it.

ALLEN WROTE - No, I’m not an apologist for NHRA. However, I’ve been a racer and I’ve been a track manager, etc. I’ve seen both sides of the fence and I think it’s easy to be an arm-chair promoter. I’ve heard your complaints, but I’ve not heard any of your own ideas. If you don’t have any, I think you at least owe NHRA the respect of seeing how this all plays out before you blast them as you have.

We never made an outright statement of objection to the concept, only to the fact that many potential scenarios don’t seem to have been addressed. In polling 35 drivers, tuners team owners and sponsors we couldn’t find one who totally agreed with the plan. The strongest objections are to the cut to a Final Four with just two races remaining. The absolutely possible scenario could be a driver winning 12 races coming in to the Elite Eight and winning another on the way to the Final Four cut-down, while someone else wins a couple of the other ones. Going into the Final Four our driver could be in second or even third place. A broken blower belt in the first round in Vegas and then a supercharger failure in Pomona’s first round could see a guy with 12 wins – far more than anyone else in the class – finishing third or even fourth. Remember that in the NASCAR scenario Cup contenders have 10 races in which to succeed or fail, and they have hundreds of laps in which to correct a driving or mechanical error. Drag racers have no such luxuries. – Jon Asher