NASCAR's future in Nashville looks secure; the question is, where in Music City does it lie?
This past weekend, NASCAR hosted its third Cup Series race at the Nashville Superspeedway; a track that about a decade before it determined was not even worthy of holding a second-tier series race. At the time it was announced to return it seemed an odd decision, to say the least, but there was a general understanding that the race was more of a “get-your-foot-in-the-door” event with the ultimate aim of returning to the Nashville Fairgrounds short track located in the heart of the city. After three years of above-average racing at the oddball Superspeedway, however, the future of NASCAR in Nashville is murky, albeit secure. To understand exactly what “murky, albeit secure” means, let’s step back a few years.
Why NASCAR left the Superspeedway in the first place
Nashville Superspeedway is one of many tracks built in the 1990s and early 2000s that sought to capitalize on the boom of the sport. Up until that point, NASCAR had prioritized (albeit not exclusively) shorter, slower tracks which were more grassroots-type venues than modern sporting stadiums. But with the sport surging in popularity through the mid-90s and peaking in the mid-2000s, it soon became clear that NASCAR could support much larger venues capable of holding upwards of 100,000 people for races, and the larger tracks were arguably better suited to the increasingly quick and safer cars of the time.
Nashville Superspeedway opened in 2001 with, presumably, the intention of joining the likes of Chicagoland, Kansas, Las Vegas, and other high-speed ovals near large cities on NASCAR’s schedule. However, for one reason or another (probably not helped by the fact that NASCAR already had two races in Tennessee per year at fan-favorite Bristol) the track was only given a second-tier Busch Series race as a standalone event.
Even looking at the track, it seems to have an unfinished-ness to it giving the impression that its original vision/intention was never realized. For example, unlike the traditional large grandstands and luxury suite combo that spans the entirety of the front straight at most tracks, the Superspeedway only has a minimal central grandstand near the start/finish line while the majority of the grandstands are low or even temporary. See below compared to Kansas Speedway, which opened roughly at the same time, for comparison.
Even with the “minimalist” facilities, the track struggled to gain traction on the schedule, as its odd configuration (a 1.3-mile concrete medium-banked tri-oval) did not produce particularly spectacular racing. It wasn’t awful, but neither was it usually must-see-TV. This lack of a hugely compelling on-track product combined with the fact that, like the tracks I mentioned above, it was about 45 minutes from the actual city of Nashville meant that it was never anything more than “just another race” on the schedule. So when NASCAR began to reduce the “standalone” events for the Busch (then Nationwide, now Xfinity) Series, Nashville was an unsurprising casualty.
Why did NASCAR go back?
There are a couple of factors that led to Nashville Superspeedway landing a place on the 2021 Cup Series schedule. First, this schedule was created during the pandemic, during which NASCAR’s standards for tracks suitable for hosting its top series seemed to wane a little bit. Not purposely, mind you, but given its relatively close location to most teams on the east coast it was a fairly safe option compared to racing in, say, California.
Second, the track was purchased by Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (SMI), the same company that owns and operates many of NASCAR’s tracks. This meant that there was the possibility of fresh investment and a more reliable operator (not that there were specific issues before, but still) which gave the track arguably a better chance of success than its previous guise.
Third, NASCAR was going through a bit of a schedule revamp around this time (which is still ongoing) after running more or less the same calendar year-on-year for more than a decade. With NASCAR wanting to change things up a bit, there’s not really any new tracks being built these days, so realistically they only have a handful of tracks they can pick from. And despite not having a huge fan desire to return there (unlike, say, North Wilkesboro), Nashville Superspeedway was one of the few tracks that the series could go back to without the track needing a substantial amount of time or money to get it prepared (again, unlike North Wilkesboro).
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, NASCAR wanted to dip its toe in the water in the Nashville market again, with the series taking a page out of F1’s book and wanting to go racing in or near big cities instead of tracks in the middle of nowhere. Now, the Superspeedway does not necessarily fit the criteria of “in a big city” as mentioned above, but there is a track that does fit that moniker in Nashville. It’s just that, unlike the Superspeedway, it does need a lot of work to bring it up to modern standards. That’s the Nashville Fairgrounds Speedway, which is located just a few minutes from downtown Nashville and is one of, it not the only track like it in America given most tracks have to be built on cheap land far out from the city center.
So NASCAR, despite not overtly saying this, clearly wanted to see if the Nashville market would be receptive to a race of any kind and racing at the Superspeedway was the best they could do. It seemed clear that if the race at the Superspeedway could gain traction, then it would be a ringing endorsement for a full renovation and modernization of the Fairgrounds with an eye to eventually racing downtown.
Where’s the problem?
Well, depending on how you look at it there sort of isn’t one because the future of NASCAR in Nashville is safe one way or another, but there definitely could be an awkward situation developing. The issue is simple: what does NASCAR want to do about the Nashville market going forward? If the Superspeedway was always intended to be a stopgap solution, it has more than fulfilled its purpose because it has been a sellout event that produces really good racing, and has had a surprisingly warm (albeit not white-hot) fan reception. So it seems like the series would be shooting itself in the foot by axing a competitive, sellout event in favor of another track, regardless of what the second track is.
Why has this issue come up?
The short answer is: the Next-Gen car. When NASCAR announced the Superspeedway was returning in 2021, this was the end of the previous generation of cars which produced significantly more exciting racing at shorter venues and road courses than fast, sweeping tracks like the Superspeedway. So it wasn’t a surprise to hear a lukewarm reaction from fans and drivers alike upon the announcement. The first race here in 2021 was decent, albeit not particularly memorable (not unlike most of the second-tier races there).
But as is now fairly well-known, NASCAR’s Next-Gen car, which arrived in 2022, flipped the script completely. Suddenly the best and most exciting racing in the series was happening on the fast intermediate tracks that had become so loathed in in the latter years of the last generation. This meant the last two races at Nashville (2022 and last Sunday) were quite good, and means that going forward it is actually an event fans are looking forward to. Meanwhile, races at short tracks (like a race at the Fairgrounds would be) and road courses, which produced the most exciting action under the old car, are significantly less exciting than before.
The root cause of this issue is the lag time between when NASCAR decides what tracks are on the schedule and the races actually happening. For example, for the final years of the last generation of cars, the races at intermediate tracks were for the most part completely subpar. So to simplify it, once contracts at these intermediate tracks expire, they were not renewed. This meant that tracks like Kentucky and Chicagoland (which in my mind would produce some of, if not the best racing if it were used today) were forced off the schedule completely. Tracks like Michigan, Pocono, Texas, Indianapolis, and Charlotte lost at least one of their races (in Indy and Charlotte’s case, a race was held on the infield road course instead).
In the place of these departing races came, largely, new road course races. This included the Charlotte Roval and Indy road course mentioned above, but also Circuit of the Americas, Road America, and now the Chicago street race. Also, the exhibition races of the Busch Clash and the All-Star race were held at short tracks rather than Daytona and Charlotte as they were traditionally. All of this would have been fine in the old car, but instead what NASCAR did was inadvertently remove potentially exciting races and replace them with processional snooze-fests or shambolic clown shows. Not great.
The desire from fans for NASCAR to go back to the Nashville Fairgrounds is strong, just like it was for North Wilkesboro. But the issue, even at North Wilkesboro, is that the current car just does not produce enthralling racing at these venues. So NASCAR is stuck between a rock and a hard place: do they stick with a surprisingly successful and entertaining event, or do they (and the track owners) spend the time and money to repair and modernize a historic venue that has far more potential on paper but precedent says will be significantly less entertaining overall?
What’s the solution?
While most things are in NASCAR’s control, some are not. Specifically, NASCAR and SMI (who have a preliminary agreement in place to operate the Fairgrounds in the future) need permission from the city of Nashville before they can do any work on the track, and local politics have a funny way of ruining many motorsport ventures. At the time of writing, however, it seems like there is a decent chance that they could get the permission they desire, putting most of the control back on NASCAR and SMI.
Bearing in mind that if they began work on the Fairgrounds right now, the earliest that NASCAR could race there is 2025, it seems that NASCAR and SMI should go forward with the renovation plans. Why? Because NASCAR’s scheduling methodology is somewhat nebulous, and rather than give dates to specific venues, they give dates to specific owners. So what SMI can do (and NASCAR will coordinate this appropriately) is replace one of its existing races with a race at the Fairgrounds. And this race should, for the first year at least, not be the race at the Superspeedway.
Instead, what NASCAR and SMI should do is replace the Easter Sunday Bristol Dirt Race with a race at the Fairgrounds instead, and leave the Superspeedway to its current mid-summer date. The logic behind this is twofold: first, the spring Bristol race has been clinging to existence for a good 7-10 years, and the “racetrack CPR” attempt to run the last few races on a dirt surface have failed to really bring back the crowds. So in terms of operating cost, you’re probably actually saving money by not having the race, especially on dirt, at Bristol anyways.
Second is the fact that if NASCAR wants to race on Easter Sunday—admittedly still odd for a sport that is still quite overtly Christian to race on a Christian holiday—it has to do so in a market or area where people don’t want or have to travel far. Easter is a holiday that families often spend at home, and aren’t willing to make a weekend trip just to see a race; especially if the track is sort of in no-man’s land like Bristol is.
NASCAR and SMI would have a better chance of filling grandstands by trying to corner and capitalize on the local Nashville market (already a pretty sporting town) on a day when it is the only real sporting event going on nationwide. Families and race fans in and around the Nashville metro area could be more easily convinced to go to a night race at the Fairgrounds than a race at Bristol or even the Superspeedway, given the track’s unusually urban setting.
Of course, there could be any number of factors which would derail such a plan, but it seems like, at the moment, the Nashville market its hungry enough, and the racing is good enough, to support two races at two different tracks on the NASCAR calendar. Maybe NASCAR will improve the Next-Gen car on short tracks, and then the playbook really is wide open. But until then, NASCAR has to navigate the troubled waters of scheduling the next three years of competition and do their best to contain a mess that they, albeit not intentionally, are mostly to blame for. That said, it’s always better to be spoiled for choice as opposed to trying to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Maybe there’s still some magic left in NASCAR after all…