Talk:2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series

Allstate 400

• It has been widely reported now in several news articles that the 2007 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard will be televised on ESPN.

Here is one notable link... http://www.allstate400atthebrickyard.com/news/story.php?story_id=7205 It is true that the non-Chase ABC race(s) have yet to be determined, but it appears quite clear that Indianapolis is locked into ESPN. Doctorindy 20:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • As a side note, they have announced the "ESPN on ABC" productions for future broadcasts, so it is better off leaving it unsettled for now. Doctorindy 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was confusing me. I know that the TV deal said that all of the Chase races will be on ABC, but the ESPN/ABC thing is making the earlier races murkier. Thanks for the link! - DiegoTehMexican 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Expected Teams List

I personally think this is very good for the page. It will not only be on this season, but all previous seasons, with teams that were scheduled to run full time with what driver in the beginning of the year. This will allow team/driver histories to become more available. Casey14 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that adding this to the previous seasons' pages will only clutter them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. This chart can easily be found on a number of websites, including Jayski, NASCAR.com, and Racing Reference. -- DiegoTehMexican 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read this and laughed. NASCAR.com only listed teams they view as "worthy" enough. For example, this year, the didn't include #61, #78 as full time, even though they announced their plans before the season started. RacingReference has no such list, and Jayski dosn't update often, and when he does he has so mistakes. Casey14 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about adding the owner points position for these teams at year end? That would show the teams that are locked into the first five races for 2007. Jnmorrell 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The more that I think about this, the more I think that some sort of list is a good idea. However, we don't need to overload it with entries. I would restrict the list on this page to confirmed 2007 entries, not rumored ones. Also, I would replace the Crew Chiefs column with "Locked In?" an owners points column - the owner's points should be represented somehow, and, unfortunately, there are far too many redlinks and wrong links for the crew chiefs - I believe that only 6 or 7 chiefs have pages. I'll work on this list and see what I can come up with. -- DiegoTehMexican 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a possible table and explanation of the owner's points here - User:DiegoTehMexican/Sandbox1. I've nixed several of the associate and part-time primary sponsors (mostly the ones without Wikipedia entries). What do you guys think? -- DiegoTehMexican 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it will give more useful information. You did a good job with it. Jnmorrell 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The only qualm I had with this is that you took off some teams that were full time this year, and will be most likely full time next year. The obvious bias towards top teams, and against lower teams, front row, BAM, and others is not good. These teams havn't made offical announcments, but since they went full time this year, it is taken for granted that they will next year, similar to let's say Kyle Busch. Kyle Busch hasn't announced he's full time next year, so should we take him off the list? No. I already updated the page, before my stupid self read this. Casey14 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason those teams were removed is because there's no confirmed details on them - neither sponsorship nor driver. -- DiegoTehMexican 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither do Morgan McClure, Robert Yates, or PPI. Should we take them off to make everything equal too? Casey14 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rookies

Jon Wood is running for rookie of the year. Chad Blount is a possibility. David Reutimann has not been announced. Regan Smith is running for rookie of the year. Don't keep editing it without having ample information. Casey14 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regan Smith and Jon Wood can't win Rookie of the Year without running the full schedule, so they will likely not declare themselves to be eligible for it. Regan Smith will run, at most, 16 races. Jon Wood's schedule is unknown. -- DiegoTehMexican 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Drivers do not need to run all races to be eligable for ROTY. They only count the top 17 finishes of the season, so Smith and Wood will both have nearly enough races to contend for the award. The additional races are already rumored to be added in a second car for Wood. Jnmorrell 19:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Jnmorrell 19:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Free Agents

Do we really need this list? No one talks about "free agents" in NASCAR, and it's pure speculation. -- DiegoTehMexican 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very helpful for the average reader to see what drivers are currently looking in the series. The list shows the five or six guys that could be in one of the cars without drivers.Casey14 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Team Charts

I have went back through 2000 and created team charts for each year. These charts are based off of the 5th race or so (so we don't have 3 drivers per team). Some teams may have fallen apart near the end of the season, thus still be on the chart. I think this is good to have particularily so that any person could go back and view which teams ran full time, with what driver, sponsor, and car make. It is very helpful. To account for the changes in the driver or sponsor, or team closings, written info will be added later, under a title named "Mid-season changes". Casey14 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly Season

I don't think that is a good term to use, as it may be confusing to the average reader. I'd prefer Pre-Season or "Changes from 2006" to make this article more like 2006 in NASCAR. At the least, the section lead should explain the term so that people unfamiliar with it know it's there on purpose. Using slang is something to be avoided, and without even an explanation? A bit much. FrozenPurpleCube 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Silly Season" is just a name taken from the British press for summer stories as stated at this link, so it fits just fine. Also, changes occur in season, so this stuff starts earlier and earlier. NoseNuggets 11:29 AM US EST Feb 11 2007

That's all well and good, but why did you remove the Lineup Changes information? — BrotherFlounder 12:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Page for Race Recaps?

I was goign to suggest that we have a seperate page for the races in the NASCAR NEXTEL Cup Season titled "2007 NASCAR NEXTEL CUP Race Recaps", and provide a link to them so at to save bandwidth on the 2007 in NASCAR page. Then after the season, it would be merged into the 2007 in NASCAR page. Agree or Disagree? NoseNuggets 11:26 AM US EST Feb 11 2007

I disagree; it was no problem last year. If any section needs to be broken out, it should be the Silly Season section. — BrotherFlounder 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If we weren't going to merge them, I could see the logic. But it'd seem kind of useless to have them in separate articles if they were only going to last for one year. Perhaps if length of the article becomes an issue, removing some of the silly season stuff could be a solution. --D-Day 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere before if the length of the article is becoming a factor then I think the way around it is to break every race out into its own article. Yes - it would represent a lot of articles, but if you want a season overview, which is surely what the 2007 page should represent then that really is not the place to discuss the specifics of every race or who didn't qualify where. In my view, each race should have no more than the key facts (the current paragraph on the Fontana race is good in my eyes, but Daytona far far too detailed), a top 5/10 and no list of DNQs - the race article can then have a more detailed race recap, complete results and the DNQs list. Jsydave 10:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Table Schedule is a valuable addition

I've returned the Schedule of Races in table format, that was removed a few days ago. I'm not sure that "because it was done this way last year" is the best justification for the choice of the presentation of information. The table is clearly an informative and useful format for the race schedule, allowing a lot of information (such as "which races are Car Of Tomorrow races) to be gleaned in a glance. The verbiage/paragraph style requires a lot of scrolling and reading for the same information. The paragraph style is certainly good for any race-specific additional details, but I don't believe it should replace the table. I've added the table into a section "Schedule" which now also includes the Test Schedule subsection. - Thaimoss 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree since this is the easiest way to get when the next race is. The quick schedule on the left gives nothing. You don't have date, time, location. And if you want quick reference (which is what I need when I check the schedule) it is not easy to find. I would like to have the point of view pats1 who keeps removing it. Cptben 13 July 2007

There is a link to the full schedule which is more than sufficient, particularly because the article is already quite long. -- Scjessey 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Standings

Shouldn't we add the current standings to this page? Preferably in a table format. Seems like this would be very useful information. War wizard90 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Name

This article focuses on 2007 in the NASCAR Nextel Cup, should the page be moved to that article name? Then we can have a page for 2007 in NASCAR Busch Series, and 2007 in NASCAR Crafstman Truck Series, and so on. Otherwise if we are going to keep this just as 2007 in NASCAR in needs to include information from all the series, which would result in a ridicoulsy long article. War wizard90 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Contreversy section added

I just added a section on the twoi biggest contreversies in NASCAR right now: AT&T's lawsuit overv the Sprint/NEXTEL exclusivtivity clause in their contract with NASCAR, and Mark Martin's part time schedule. Feel free to add anything. NoseNuggets 10:53 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007

The Mark Martin situation is hardly a "contreversy" (sic). I think that paragraph should be deleted or moved somewhere else. -- Scjessey 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Owner Points and Sponsors

Owner Points should be of the previous season, not of the current season. The chart is for teams that were full time, as of the fifth race. Owner points do not need to be updated, as they are of the previous season, in all other years in NASCAR pages.

For Sponsors, we do not need to have all the associate or one time primary sponsors. Only major primary sponsors, please! Casey14 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Change Back Team Chart

All full time teams after race 5, #13 and #14 need to be added back. Like the template on other season pages, the team chart on the NASCAR season pages are for full time teams and drivers after race 5. There is a current page for NASCAR teams if you want a team chart, but this is not the place for it. Casey14 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Alternatively, the #13 and #14 need to be listed as part time teams, right now they make no appearence at all, which is an inaccurate record of the season. Duds 2k 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sponsors List

I noticed there are sponsors in the Full time entries table that were only present in maybe one or two races, for instance on Tony Raines "Shreck The Third" is listed as a sponsor. This could be confusing as it was only a one race deal and not the whole entire season, this info really needs to be kept on sites like Jayski. Anyways I removed a lot of instances of that to keep it simple but still give people an idea of what the car sponsors are. I did make an exception of course for cars like #7, #15, #37, ect who's primary sponsors change from race to race. KaseyKahneFan 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NASCAR Nextel Cup Series Logo.svg

Image:NASCAR Nextel Cup Series Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)