1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2009 NASCAR running thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. I am suprised (sort of) they took both Frances.
     
  2. kleeda

    kleeda Active Member

    No David Pearson and no true old-timer (France Sr. doesn't count.)
    Wow.
     
  3. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    I'd argue that Junior is a "true old-timer."

    Was discussing this with someone else a bit ago ... one of the reasons he probably got in was because, as lore goes, he helped funnel that RJR money to Daytona Beach.
     
  4. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Very interesting listening to Jerry Punch on ESPN describing the election process. Apparently it was a very close call putting both Frances in, as a large minority wanted Bill Jr. to wait until year two. Also, they asked if they could double selections from 5 to 10 and NASCAR said no.
     
  5. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I don't have a problem with anyone on the list being in the first group. If I were voting I'd probably have put Pearson in this year and France Jr. in next year, but I certainly won't begrudge him going in now. You could even make the argument for Bill Jr. to go in first and Big Bill second if you only took one of the two because although Big Bill was one of (not THE) founders, it was under Bill Jr.'s guidance that the sport really stepped into the national spotlight.

    I doubt you could have gone wrong with any five you took. Larry Woody wrote that all 25 should go in, but I totally disagree. Yeah, some greats that had claim to being in the first class were snubbed, but if you put 25 in right at the start it takes something away from being in the first group and about year three or four you're putting in people like Geoff Bodine who had fine careers, but aren't Hall of Famers.
     
  6. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Yeah, that's what I was thinking, Joe. I understand wanting to put in a lot of people at first, but I'm glad NASCAR's looking at it long-term. Can't be rushing at first and then screwed 5-6 years down the pike.
     
  7. Yeah there is no way all 25 of them should have gone in first.
     
  8. murphyc

    murphyc Well-Known Member

    I would agree with that, plus including two Frances in the first class just doesn't look right. Especially since it cost Pearson. I agree totally with Big Bill (helping to start the sport, plus building Daytona), Petty (both for on-track success and off-track class), Earnhardt (on-track success and being a key in the sport's explosion in popularity) and Junior Johnson (great driver, successful car owner plus helping get Winston to sponsor the series instead of his own car). Bill Jr. I could see for helping steer the sport during its growth. IMO, what hurt Pearson was being overshadowed number-wise by Petty, and for not having the cultural impact guys like Bill Jr. and Earnhardt did.
     
  9. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    Gotta love NASCAR. It can even spawn a conspiracy theory out of the HOF (was a two-France class predetermined? were the actual ballots revealed? was the HOF building really built on an ancient burial ground?). I agree, a 40 percent France inaugural class just looks weird.
     
  10. expendable

    expendable Well-Known Member

    Should we rename it the Hall of France?
     
  11. Did they surrender?
     
  12. expendable

    expendable Well-Known Member

    Brian did.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page