So why did NASCAR's TV ratings drop so much for last weekend's race? What do you say?

Must admit I was a bit surprised at the ratings drop for the New Hampshire race on Sunday. ESPN announced that the U.S. rating for the race was a 2.3 on ESPN. Last year's race was on ABC and drew a U.S. rating of 3.2.

Wow. To go from a 3.2 to a 2.3 this year. Now, NASCAR's TV ratings have been dropping but there have been some races where they went up.  New Hampshire was a fascinating race for me, but I'm there and have a different perspective than you the fan. I'll acknolwedge that. I was fascinated by the hard racing in the first 50 laps or so. I was intrigued by the chatter on the radio via my scanner (mainly from Kyle Busch and Kevin Harvick, along with a few others) and I thought the end was interesting to see Denny Hamlin go from 22nd to third after he was spun by Carl Edwards with 86 laps to go. And of course the drama on fuel mileage with three Chase drivers gambling. 

So I asked the question on Twitter and got a lot of interesting responses. Let me address a few some folks brought up.

# Some said that the ratings dropped because ESPN is not in as many households as ABC. Let's look at that: ABC is in about 110 million homes; ESPN is in about 100 million. Yes, there's a drop off but it's doubtful to explain the significant drop in the New Hampshire ratings. I was told by someone that the various measurements available to ESPN showed that the ratings were down for them more from people who have ESPN ... thus the ABC factor seems to be less a factor.

# Some said the commercials are killing the sport. This is a major complaint by fans.

As @SheilaHawley wrote me on Twitter about this issue: "8 laps and go to (commercial). 6 laps during (commercial). " ... Come back from (commercial) to Yellow Flag.''

OK, to address this issue: The networks combined to pay more than $4 billion for the NASCAR TV rights through 2014. Yes, most of the races are on cable and they can make some money that way,  but advertising fees are still a significant source of revenue for the networks. That said, too much greed could run more fans off and that does no one any good.

# Another issue about commercials.  Via Twitter, I got this from @hmsdude24: "Indycar has Side by Side during commercials so you don't miss anything.''

Of course, what he's talking about is that on the IndyCar broadcasts, they show both the commercial and the race (in a much smaller screen) so you don't miss anything. Here's why that is done. The IndyCar ratings are so low that the series and sponsors decided it was best for the sponsor to have a smaller amount of space on the TV screen than risk taking it all and having people flip away. For that to happen for Cup races, NASCAR, the networks and sponsors would all have to agree to do that. They don't. Yes, TNT does it for the July Daytona race but  that's a one-time thing. If it could work, don't you think they'd be doing it? Of course, they might not have any choice soon and everybody might need to just buck up and do this ... or ...

# Do what a few of you suggested to me, as @AndySection305 wrote me: "I don't understand why NASCAR and TV partners can do what does. Have segments of coverage sponsored.'' ... It's a good question. I don't have an answer for it but to suspect that getting one sponsor to sponsor a segment of the race might not bring in enough money (there's that magic word). Still, it's something, if it can be feasible for the networks should be considered.

# Another reason for the ratings decline from @3Riff88 on Twitter: "If the 88 car (Dale Earnhardt Jr.) wins, NASCAR wins and fans will fill those empty seats we see every week. I believe that.'' ... That's the common perception and even NASCAR Chairman Brian France has said the sport could use Dale Earnhardt Jr. being successful. Since he's missed the Chase 3 of the last 4 years, that doesn't cut it for a lot of folks. If he did well, it could increase ratings but what if it didn't? Then what?

# Another comment I got via Twitter for the declining ratings came from @dustincary: "NASCAR has simply diluted the market with almost year round racing.'' ... No doubt about that with 38 total races in 42 weekends but what about Major League Baseball? What about the NFL and now this talk of going to 18 games and how there's so much focus on the combine after the season and then the draft in April, and then training camps. It's like year-round coverage there.

# And another one I got from a few people such as @silverdsl: "Many fans have made up their minds not to like NASCAR and can't be convinced to enjoy watching no matter how good the racing is.

# And also mentioned was NFL (which is getting big ratings early in the season),  the TV talent (a complaint every year regardless of who is or isn't in the booth) and how networks treat NASCAR.

So you've seen some of the complains ... what's your take AND WHAT'S A WAY TO FIX IT that fits within the business model. So, no, the season isn't going to be shortened to 25 races. And No, the Chase is not going to go away. So then what? It's your sport. Time to be heard.

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.