Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs

Volume 4 Issue 1 Volume 4 Monograph, 2010 Article 3

2010

NASCAR: A Story of Success

Kathleen Munger Bowling Green State University, [email protected]

David L. Groves Bowling Green State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions_monographs

Recommended Citation Munger, Kathleen and Groves, David L. (2010) "NASCAR: A Story of Success," Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions_monographs/vol4/iss1/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. NASCAR: A STORY OF SUCCESS

BY

KATHLEEN MUNGER, ADJUNCT FACULTY

AND

DR. DAVID L. GROVES, PROFESSOR EMERITUS

SCHOOL OF HUMAN MOVEMENT, SPORT AND LEISURE STUDIES BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403

INTRODUCTION original use of the technique was to elicit information from experts in order to estab­ This study empirically investigated the rea­ lish an atomic defense strategy (Helmer, sons for the past, present and future suc­ 1975). The technique has been used in a cesses of NASCAR (Bonham, 1999). It in­ variety of fields including education, busi­ volved identifying and understanding the ness, public administration, evaluation of structural elements and relationships within programs, and development/identification of NASCAR utilizing a forecasting methodol­ educational innovations (Rieger, 1986). ogy. The key is identifying the appropriate methodology and incorporating the impor­ The major purpose of the Delphi process is tant elements of the present NASCAR struc­ to obtain consensus from a panel of experts ture and historical data to allow an under­ in a specific field. These experts must re­ standing of the evolution of the sport and spond to the question(s) being studied. The assess its future. Forecasting as an overall panelists are asked, in a series of question­ technique is designed to speculate on the naires presented in rounds, to anonymously predictability and probability of the future. provide their own opinion (Dalkey & Hel­ Based on an analysis of the various forecast­ mer, 1963). Anonymity allows the expert to ing techniques, the Delphi technique was respond without group pressure or domina­ used. This technique allowed the integration tion of an individual within the group. of expert opinion and intuition and was the "Delphi replaces direct confrontation and most appropriate method to examine the rea­ debate by a carefully planned, orderly pro­ sons for the success of NASCAR (Chou, gramof sequential individual interrogations" 2002 & Dean et al, 2007). (Brown, 1968, p. 3). The technique asks for each expert to provide a rationale for his/her opinion. Review by the other experts in an THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE anonymous fashion is also a possibility and must be agreed upon. Utilization of the The Delphi technique as an intuitive metho­ Delphi process allows investigators "to dology was developed in 1953 by two em­ make the best use of a group of experts in ployees (Dalkey & Helmer) of the Rand obtaining answers to questions requiring re­ Corporation. (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The liance, at least in part, on the informedintui-

37 tive opinions of specialists in the area of in­ associated with face-to-face interactions quiry." (Helmer, 1983, p. 134) such as acceptance of the ideas of the most vocal or prestigious group members, loss of A review of the literature on the Delphi anonymity, and lack of controlled feedback technique reveals that there are strengths as (Daud et al, 2010). The advantages of using well as weaknesses in the application. But, a Delphi process as stated by Somers et al. Dalkey & Helmer (1963, p. 1) say that it is (1984) include the following: (a) production the most reliable in securing a "consensus of of high quality ideas, (b) ease of obtaining opinion of a group of experts." The advan­ the opinions of geographically isolated ex­ tages in using the Delphi technique center perts, ( c) group forecasts are more reliable around practical application of the technique than those of an individual, and ( d) promo­ (Hassan et. al, 2000). The advantages in­ tion of a feeling of accomplishment and clo­ clude the ease of explanation concerning the sure. methods to persons involved in the process. A high quality of information can be gener­ The Delphi technique has been used a great ated based on the anonymity factor and the deal in the area of education. (Rieger 1986) multiple opportunities to revise the initial A variety of educational areas have bene­ input. In addition, anonymity reduces the fited from the use of the Delphi technique. pressure to conform to other experts. A (Alley, 1985; Helmer, 1975; Ludwig & third advantage is that there may be issues Starr, 2005; & Weaver, 1988) One study in that will not reach consensus and ·these is­ particular was undertaken by the Institute of sues can be identified and addressed. A Government and Public Affairs at the Uni­ fourth advantage identified is that every pa­ versity of California at Los Angeles. This nelist has an equal chance to provide new study was titled, "Innovation in Education" information or respond to comments made and was completed in 1966 using the Delphi by other panelists. A final and very impor­ technique. In this study, the rationale for tant advantage is that experts from across a using the Delphi technique was to provide wide area can participate in the process information to those responsible for making without having to leave their home base. educational policy (Brown, 1968). Helmer This advantage is very important to re­ conducted a study using a panel of educa­ searchers. (Fisher, 1978 & Somers et al., tional experts to establish preferred goals for 1984) federalfunding. Daud, et al. (2010) used the Delphi technique to explore competencies. Discovering the "truth" through census of opinion is the theoretical basis for using a There has been criticism of the Delphi tech­ Delphi process. Many researchers have nique from various persons including Sack­ viewed the Delphi process as a superior me­ man (1975), a member of the Rand Corpora­ thodological approach when comparing it to tion (Hartman, 1981; Rieger, 1986; & a random sample survey of experts utilizing Weaver, 1988). Four areas are identified an interview format, (Brown, 1968; Dalkey most often as weaknesses of the technique. & Helmer, 1963; Hartman, 1981; Polit & First, the process can be time-consuming Hungler, 1978; Somers et al., 1984; & and costly with the need to contact experts Treece & Treece, 1977; & Weaver, 1988). and elicit responses (Treece & Treece, In general, the Delphi technique provides 1977). Second, long questionnaires often the investigator with the benefits of a group cause fatigue among the experts (Brown, format while avoiding the problems often 2007). Third, the results may not reflect re-

38 ality if care is not taken in the selection of SAMPLE SELECTION the panelists and if they drop out of the study (Hartmen, 1981 & Weaver, 1988). In order to conduct a study using the Delphi Fourth, Sackman was concerned about the approach, it was necessary to identify a pan­ careless implementation of the Delphi el of experts (Dempsey & Dempsey, 1986). process (Rieger, 1986); however, Reiger's The experts for this investigation were iden­ (1986) and Sack.man's (1975) criticisms tified through use of the reputational me­ have not revealed flaws in the technique but thod. (Williams et al., 2004) The reputa­ rather the need to take caution in its applica­ tional method for locating elite with attri­ tion. buted influence has been used in many stu­ dies. According to Harman and Press (1975), "when a variety of professionals in a SAMPLING PROCEDURES field are polled about whom they regard as an expert, and the same individuals keep be­ The Delphi technique requires the participa­ ing mentioned, those individuals must be tion of individuals who have been identified considered experts" (p. 5). as "experts" in their field of endeavor. The predictions and judgmentswhich result from use of the Delphi method are based upon PANEL "expert opinion." As in an earlier study by Lindquist (1973), there is a problem with the The groups of experts identified for this definition of the qualities of the individuals study were historians, archivists, academi­ who possess "expert" knowledge because of cians, and authors of NASCAR literature the need for a constitutive definition trans­ (McCulloch & McMowan, 2007). They latable in an operational manner. This re­ were individuals who had been identified as search will utilize the followingdefinition of having expertise in topics related to expert opinion. Expert opinion is a belief or NASCAR management with an interest in judgment that rests upon grounds insuffi­ its future. cient to produce certainty, but which has been used by a person or persons possessed A leadership identification technique (Repu­ of extraordinary skill or knowledge in a par­ tational Method) was used to identify the ticular field. (Lindquist, 1973) It is theo­ experts (Akins et. al., 2005 & Salaba, 2009). rized that the opinion of experts in a particu­ This technique involved known experts lar field will offer deeper insight than the identifying other experts. The initial experts opinion of the general public into the topic were identified through a literature search under consideration. Coates (1997) believes and personal contact with historians, acade­ that it is important to recognize that experts micians, archivists, and authors. These ex­ do exist and that, if one accepts the premise perts were asked to identify others who they that one of the purposes of science ( that is felt qualified as experts on NASCAR. This knowledge) is to improve predictive ability qualification was through published articles (through appropriate models and an under­ and/or books or personal involvement in the standing of cause and effect relationships), sport. When no new experts were identified one could define an expert as someone who and each expert had been identified two could, on the average, make better predic­ times, the leadership identification was tions than anyone else. ceased. There is no claim intended that the respondents to the invitation to be a part of

39 the study represent all of the "experts" in nelist contacted agreed to participate in the NASCAR. Using this technique, a diversity study. The average experience was 26 years of experts including historians, academics, in a leadership position within the field. archivists, and authors with not only a Items on the questionnaire were: age, gend­ knowledge of the sport but a history with the er, educational background, experience, po­ sport, were identified. The number of pro­ sition, research, and articles/books pub­ fessionals who met the criteria for "experts" lished. This information was used later in were limited and the sample sizewas 30 par­ the study to develop a profile of the panel­ ticipants. ists. In the first round, each of the experts was asked to review key issues that had been identified from literature as having an im­ DATA COLLECTION pact on the success of NASCAR (Daud et al., 2010 & Yin & Salaba, 2009) (Themed The Delphi protocol was used so that data Content Analysis). They were asked to as­ could be collected in rounds and a consensus certain whether or not the issues presented process used to determine the structure as were important, on a yes/no basis, to the well as the relationships among the structur­ success of NASCAR. They were allowed to al elements (Haley et al., 2007). This al­ add issues as they felt necessary. (Appendix lowed for increased validity and reliability 2) When the panelists responded to these based upon the consensus process. This is issues, the researchers interpreted the an­ essential with the NASCAR project as one swers and developed a second list of state­ of the methodological problems is the dif­ ments based on perceived importance of the ferent opinion among the groups about their experts. The compilation of the experts' relationships. The basic instrument was perceptions was structured so each separate open-ended or semi-structured and the iden-: statement contained one specific issue. The tified experts were used to establish baseline result of round one was a list of issue state­ data (Young and Jamieson, 2001). The type ments that in some way impact the success of experts involved in the data collection of NASCAR (Brown, 2007). was historians, archivists, academics, and authors with a high degree of involvement Round Two in, and knowledge of the sport. These indi­ viduals were also used to confirm the results To begin this round, the panelists were given and give feedback to validate the developed the list of issue statements that were com­ framework. The model and suggestions for piled from the first round. The panelists use of Delphi from Barnette et al. (1978, were asked to respond to each issue state­ Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010, & Rieger ment in terms of whether the statement was (1986) was utilized within this study. In­ truly a key issue in the success of NASCAR. formation about the three rounds used is The response was recorded on a Likert-type presented below. scale using a range of five points from "Not Critical" to "Critical." The panelists had the Round One option of responding that they were "unde­ cided;" but needed to provide their reason In order to ascertain the nature of each pa­ for that response (Appendix 3). nelist's expertise (Rieger, 1986), each panel­ ist was asked to complete a demographic As a means of ensuringthat all possible top­ questionnaire (Appendix 1). All but one pa- ics had been covered, the panelists were

40 asked to consider the responses from round In addition, an evaluation formwas given to one in the context of the following topical each panelist to provide an opportunity to headings: NASCAR, drivers, team owners, identify issue statements that needed to be media, merchandisers, fans, and sponsors. reworded or to suggest additional statements These headings were identified in previous that were not included in the third-round list. research (Morais & Groves, 1997). (Appendix 5) (Task 3) This validation of the instrument was used or suggested by Reiger (1986). Results from the evaluations At the conclusion of round two, the percen­ were analyzed; if rewording or additional tage of responses in the fiveintervals of the statements were determined to be warranted, Likert scale were calculated for each state­ changes were made in the instrument used ment. If there was 100% agreement or disa­ later in the round. When the responses from greement on any statement, it was removed round three were received, the percentage of fromfurther consideration in round three. If responses in each interval of the issue state­ the 100% consensus of an issue statement ments was once again calculated. In addi­ was in the 4/5 Critical intervals the state­ tion, the responses were analyzed for stabili­ ment was considered a key issue and placed ty. Stability was declared when the majority in the final list of key issues. If the 100% of the responses had changed between two consensus of an issue statement was in the adjacent rounds Two and Three, or Task 1 1/2 Not Critical internals, (Appendix 4) it and Task 3. A panelist could change his/her was not accepted as an issue statement response within the 4/5 Critical intervals or (Brown, 2007). the 1/2 Not Critical intervals without it be­ ing considered unstable. However, any Round Three movement into, or out of, the undecided in­ terval caused the response to be declared At the beginning of round three, (Appendix unstable along with any movement from the 5) (Task 1) each panelist was given: (a) the affirming intervals to the non-affirming in­ percentage of all panelists' responses for tervals ( or the opposite direction). Dajani, et each statement, (b) the individual's personal al. (1979) hierarchy for removal of a state­ response to each statement, (c) new state­ ment was utilized in this step. If the res­ ments (if generated in round two), and ( d) ponses were determined to be unstable the comments made by the panelists. The major statement was removed from the analysis. feature of this round was to have the panel­ ists reconsider their initial responses in light When stability was indicated, the next step of the percentages of responses and com­ was to decide whether the statement was ments made by the other panelists. If the identified as consensus, majority, bipolarity, panelist's response remained outside of the or disagreement (Dajani et.al, 1979). Dajani norm (When there was 70% of the responses et.al (1979), indicated that a majority (i.e., within two adjacent intervals on the scale, more than 50% ), could be used as the basis excluding the undecided interval), he/she to terminate the review of a statement. (Ap­ was asked to provide a rational for holding pendix 5) (Task 2) However, in this study to a minority opinion (Rieger, 1986). If over the majority was recognized when there was 50% of responses were concentrated on a agreement of 75 % or more as a means of combination of undecided/agree or unde­ ensuring that only the key issues are identi­ cided/disagree, each panelist was asked to fied. Specifically, when a statement re­ provide comments about his/her opinion. ceived unanimous agreement, consensus

41 ·-

was achieved; and the statement was elimi­ NASCAR categories, by examining the in­ nated from future rounds. If stability had terrelationships of the various statements by been indicated and the majority of the res­ leadership era. Conclusions were drawn ponses fell within two adjacent intervals on from the data to describe the reasons for the the scale the statement was removed from success of NASCAR (Sackman, 1975) the instrument. Moreover, any statement with bipolarity (where responses were equally divided) was evaluated by the re­ RESULTS searches to determine whether to eliminate it fromthe analysis. If the researchers decided The results section was discussed in three that there was sufficient stability and chose parts: important elements that influence the not to rephrase the statement, it was then success of NASCAR, differences in these removed from future rounds and not identi­ leadership elements by era, and future con­ fied as an issue statement. Finally, when sideration based upon which of the elements there was disagreement, (i.e., less than 50% might be important to continuing success agreement), among the panelists and they (Brown, 2007). could not be brought into agreement, the re­ searchers discerned whether the statement A Delphi methodology composed of identi­ should be eliminated. Statements were re­ fying elements and developing consensus moved according to the Dajani et.al. (1979) from experts was used in the study. There hierarchy for removal of a statement from were three rounds in this Delphi procedure. the next round as stated in the earlier part of Rounds one and two were used to identify round three. The identified statements from the critical elements and the importance of the earlier part of round three were pre­ this leadership in round three were assessed sented in an Importance-Performance set-up by era or leader. The first round was to de­ to identify the current performance of velop the instrument and the second was to NASCAR in regards to that issue by era develop consensus. There were 30 experts (Bill France Sr., Bill France, and Bryan in the panel. Two of the panel members dis­ France). (Fildon & Hallman, 2010) (Ap­ continued the study after the first round. pendix 5) (Task 2) With the conclusion of The reasons given fornonparticipating in the round three, the process was completed study were time commitment and disagree­ (Brown, 2007). ment with the methodology being used in the study. The panel was selected using a leadership identification method in which ANALYSIS the leaders are identifiedand asked to identi­ fy other key leaders. The criteria used for This is a descriptive study utilizing a Delphi selection of leaders were involvement with technique. The data was analyzed to deter­ NASCAR past and present and being in a mine the level of consensus achieved on key position to understand the basic opera­ each Delphi statement and whether stability tions of the racing series. There were histo­ of responses had occurred between rounds rians, archivists, academics, and authors. (Holey et al., 2007). Those statements that The mean number of years involvement with achieve consensus were utilized to define NASCAR was eighteen. and explain the reasons for the success of NASCAR. Statements were grouped into The original list of 25 critical elements that themes based on the previously mentioned were used in the initial instrument in round

42 one was obtained from a thematic content elements was some type of relationship to analysis of research articles, books, and pro­ faninvolvement in the sport. These dimen­ fessional publications, and newspaper ar­ sions reflected a direct or indirect connec­ ticles (Perry & Gilbody, 2009). During tion to the importance of spontaneous round one these elements were used to as­ change based upon fan reaction (Bechtel, sess their salience in determining the success 2010). of NASCAR operations. The panel could add to or delete elements on the list. Results The first round of the Delphi study was the were based upon the two highest categories listing of these 25 elements and having the of important and extremely important. This panel determine whether they were impor­ was the critical list that was identified. Even tant in termsof a yes or no response. Mem­ though the others were not critical, they bers of the panel could also comment on the were shown in terms of a percentage and elements as well as add additional elements results. During round two the panel was that contribute to the success of NASCAR. asked to confirmthe critical element list and (Appendix 2 & 3) their ranking. During round three, that panel was asked to assess what critical elements The results indicated that all 25 elements were important during three eras of were important and 15 elements were added NASCAR. The top two categories were to the list. The common thread through the used to distinguish critical elements during 15 elements that were added was how each era. Results were reported in terms of NASCAR developed the sport in terms of percentages in the critical elements ranked. manipulation of operational factors. Of the Comparisons were then made among eras. 25 elements, there was a range of 100% yes­ If an element was in all three eras it was an es to 45% yeses. (Appendix 4) Those ele­ important element. If it appeared only in ments that had a 70 percent or higher re­ one era, it was a conditional element. Each sponse as important were: fans felt part of era was characterized based upon the rela­ NASCAR family, drivers/personalities, tionships among the elements. The future France family leadership, good entertain­ issues were analyzed in termsof an anecdot­ ment, television coverage, good decision­ al record procedure. Common themes were making, fanfriendly, fans identify with cars, identified as it related to future conditions female audience, NASCAR an accepted and elements that would determine the suc­ sport, level of competition, national cham­ cess of NASCAR. pionship, money involved, institution of NASCAR, modern speedways/fan ameni­ ties, safety, community support, and RJR IMPORTANT ELEMENTS sponsorship. The common elements in the highest positions were fan based and the There were 25 leadership elements identi­ elements in the lower positions were fied from literature and previous research NASCAR operations. The elements added studies. These elements were selected based by the panel were: decline of stick and ball upon their frequency of appearance. The sports, consistent/close/competitive racing, original list contained more elements but cup title sponsorship, development of major they were identified by content experts as souvenir trade, realignment of schedule, the ones that held the greatest promise in length of season/number of races, tracks all understanding why NASCAR is successful. over the country, mainstream marketing of The common dimension among these 25 sport, family sport image, products sponsor-

43 ship, role of sponsors, accessibility of driv­ performance and the high performance cate­ ers, and mainstream media acceptance. gories (Table 1). The two elements that were common to all three eras were driv­ In round two, the 25 original elements and ers/personality and fan friendly. This indi­ the 15 new elements were assessed in terms cates the importance of the entertainment of their importance to the success of value and the vicariousness of the event to NASCAR. A five-point importance scale the fans. The components that were com­ was used. The panel was also given the res­ mon to two of the eras were: good decision ponses from round one to help them in com­ making, accessibility, product sponsorship, pletion of their round two tasks. The results role of sponsors, and France family leader­ were reported in terms of mean of response ship. This indicates the importance of the at the very important and critically important media to the popularization of the sport, es­ responses. There were three levels of re­ pecially as it relates to its growth (Beekman, sponse: 75% or greater, 50 percent to 74%, 2010; & Menzer, 2001). and 49% or less. (Appendix 5) (Task 2) Those elements that had a 75% or greater The elements that were common to all three response rate on the very important and cru­ eras are the ones that are strongest factors in cially important categories were: drivers/ the formation of success. The elements that personalities, television coverage, enter­ were common to all three eras were: driv­ tainment, fans feel part of NASCAR family, ers/personalities, good decision-making and fan friendly, decision-making, level of com­ France family leadership. This indicates the petition, consistent/close/competitive racing, importance of administrative processes and accessibility of driver, mainstream media having a vision and ways to develop this vi­ acceptance, mainstream marketing of sport, sion into reality. The elements that were and family sport image. The common ele­ common to two of the eras were: fans felt ment through these dimensions again was part of the NASCAR family, product spon­ fans and the building of popularity through sorship, and accessibility of the drivers. the media and level of competition. This indicates the importance of the fans and their involvement with the sport and the rec­ ognition of this by the sponsor. LEADERSHIPERAS Each of the eras was characterized in terms In round three the statements or components of the elements that have the top rankings in were confirmed to develop consensus to es­ terms of their means (Table 1). This gave an tablish content validity. They were also giv­ indication about the nature of the adminis­ en the opportunity to change the wording of tration during their time of control. The Bill any of the statements. There were no France Sr. leadership era was characterized changes in the components or the wording by the following elements: driv­ of the components. ers/personality, fans felt part of the NASCAR family, fan friendly, good deci­ The panel was also asked to evaluate each sion-making, accessibility of drivers, France component by era (Neiger et al., 2001). A family leadership, and fans identify with five-point scale was for superior perfor­ cars. The common element among these mance to no performance. The two catego­ factors was the fan and the leadership devel­ ries used to make decisions about the impor­ oping a fan friendly product (Bledsoe, 1975; tance of the components were the superior

44 Branham, 2010; & MacGregor & Evanitsk, rized by the evolution of the sport and its 2005). establishment through fan based endeavors. The BrianFrance era has been one of expan­ In the Bill France Jr. leadership era, the fol­ sion through marketing and media (Broker, lowing components were important: driv­ 2009 & Wheeler & Golenback, 2010). er/personalities, fans felt part of NASCAR family, fan friendly, good decision-making, accessibility of drivers, product sponsorship, FUTURE QUESTIONS France family leadership, and RJR sponsor­ ship. There was a very similar pattern to This last section was developed as a result of this leadership era in the Bill France Sr. era the open ended questions about the future of (Brown, 1984). There was recognition dur­ NASCAR as it relates to the leadership di­ ing this era of the importance of sponsorship mensions (Wayne, 2009). There were three providing the necessary money for expan­ questions: where do you see the future of sion of the sport (Hall, 2002 & Menzer, NASCAR in terms of leadership, where do 2001). you see NASCAR in terms of its growth, and where do you see the future of During the Brian France era, the following NASCAR in terms of the fans (Clark, 2008; were the top or important elements: televi­ Fielder, 1993; & Horrow & Swatek, 2009). sion coverage, mainstream media accep­ tance, mainstream marketing of sport, fami­ Comments were analyzed in terms of a the­ ly sport image, products sponsorship, roll of matic content analysis (Syed et al., 2010). sponsor, modem speedways/fan amenities, The two general themes were fans and main­ tracks all over the country, national cham­ taining connections and development of new pionship, Sprint title sponsorship, and de­ approaches to widen the appeal of NASCAR velopment of major souvenir trade. This to the general public without leaving tradi­ leadership's primary focus is on marketing tional fans behind. Another general theme and expansion of the sport through the me­ was the importance of marketing and televi­ dia. The purpose was to increase the popu­ sion to develop a new product that has an larity of the sport for the generation of reve- appeal to the general public and reaches 1mes from media and sponsors. These ele­ these individuals in order to develop a new ments were most common to the France Jr. loyal fan base. Even though the key to old and Brian France eras. The four top ele­ fans may be the level of competition, the ments of the Bill France era were: accessi­ entertainment value of the product is the fo­ bility of drivers, fans that identify with the cus of the future (Engel, 1974). The balance car, drivers/personalities, and France family between the old and new fanswill be one of leadership. The top three elements of the the critical factors that will significantly in­ Bill France Jr. era were: RJR sponsorship, fluencethe growth or decline of the sport. drivers/personalities, and France family lea­ dership. The seven top elements of the Question 1 Brian France era were: television coverage, tracks all over the country, mainstream me­ The two general themes were France family dia acceptance, mainstream marketing sup­ leadership and their ability to change with a port, product sponsorship, role of sponsors focus on the future. The commitment of the and national championship. The Bill family has been one of total dedication to France, Bill France Jr. eras were characte- the sport at any cost. The depth of the or-

45 ganization in terms of its talent is one of the ing sports because of the aggressive posture primary factorsthat have kept the sport in an to bring change to the sport. The new ap­ innovative position. The structure has been proach represents entertainment where the open especially in the development of talent old represents tradition as it relates to the and blending talent from the outside sources. heritage of the sport. The growth is in urban These individuals have been exceptional in areas. The question being raised is how well the spotting of opportunities to develop the the current leadership knows how to develop sport. One of the factors has been the poli­ its product in an urban setting with many tics of the sport that surfaced in lawsuits in­ traditional sports such as baseball, football, volving the Kentucky and Texas speedways. and basketball (Manahan, 2004 & Pillsbury, Deals have been made behind the scenes 1995). especially in the Texas speedway suit. This has opened the door for other suits when Another aspect of growth is the involvement there is disagreement or disenchantment of Toyota and possibly Volkswagen entering (McGuire, 2000). the list of manufacturers which sponsor the sport. These companies are definitely in­ Question 2 volved in racing and each series they have become involved in has become more com­ The leadership issue focuses upon bringing petitive as a result, the interest of the sport good decision makers into the process to has increased. Another aspect of these man­ guide the formationof policy. This has been ufacturers is that many people in the U.S. the characteristic of all the eras of the France drive these cars. This opens the question of leadership. The leadership style is direct but the international appeal of NASCAR to the it is open to change and suggestions based countries of Mexico and Canada. NASCAR upon merit. There have been questions has already started to establish itself in these raised about Brian France's commitment to countries. The media and track ownership the sport and suggestions that he may leave has begun to create a positive atmosphere the sport in favorof another sport. Underly­ for NASCAR. The other issue involved ing this discussion was a theme of the old with this internationalization of NASCAR is versus the new in terms of the change the question of diversity, especially in trying process. One of the elements that may to get these audiences interested in the sport shape the future is antitrust suits. The Texas because in the future they will have heroes suit that was settled shows the power of the in the racing series. court and mediation to challenge the leader­ ship of the France family. This suit opened Question 3 the door for additional suits, like the Ken­ tucky, one to change policy in NASCAR One of the primary issues of concern is the (Schaefer, 2005; Scott, 2996a; & Scott exponential growthof NASCAR in terms of 1996b). attendance, television viewing, etc. There is a consensus that this growth cannot continue The growth of the sport is directly related to and that it will level out; therefore, it is im­ new audiences and new revenues for the portant to put into place elements that will race. There is a controversy about new conserve and sustain the growth that has oc­ tracks and old tracks being forced out to curred. The primary controversy is from the make way for new audiences that are na­ fanbase and the division that exists between tional. NASCARis one of the fastest grow- the old and the new. It is important to de-

46 velop a product that relates to the old fans but provides the entertainment excitement CONCLUSION that is needed to attract new fans. The old fan base is primarily rural and southern and There are three primary issues. One is the the new fan base is urban/suburban and na­ fan base and the aggressiveness of the media tionwide. Minorities are also being courted programs and changes to improve the prod­ to increase their interest in the NASCAR uct. Two is the leadership of Brian France product. There are many diversity programs and the speed with which changes are being to develop minority heroes to attract minori­ made. The third element is control and ty audiences. There is also an attempt to whether the absolute control will be able to develop an international fan base, especially be utilized the same way it has in the past. in Mexico and Canada. The development of This issue is reflective of direct and indirect the infrastructure especially in Canada is influences. The common theme to these already well underway. New fan bases will three issues is growth of the sport and ability ensure the continued growth of the to achieve stability. NASCAR is at a cros­ NASCAR product (Thompson, 2006). sroads and the leadership is essential to en­ sure it's future. Leadership in this context is There is also a movement toward the devel­ one of change but not the direct control that opment of Toyota and Volkswagen into the has been exercised in the past. It is going to sport to further diversify the car base and the take a leadership that is direct and will bring competition. There are many Americans the old and the new together. who drive these cars and would like to see them on the track. There is also a foreign contingency that drive these cars and would develop an interest in NASCAR because their cars are on the track.

One of the elements that is a common thread between the old and new fan is the accessi­ bility of the driver and the fan friendliness of the sport (Varrus, 2007 & Watson, 2010). This may be less than in the past but the al­ lusion is still that the sport is fan friendly. The primary focus of this issue is very im­ portant to the development of the sport. Another crucial element is the Hall of Fame because it will develop a sense of tradition that will bond the old and new fans.

There are many issues that have to be re­ solved in regard to fans, especially the old fans. This involves the tracks and the cost of tickets, concessions, the drive, etc. Another issue is the new audiences and de­ velopment of marketing strategies to relate to urban markets.

47 Appendix 1

Demographic Information

NASCAR Affiliation: (Choose one)

D Reporter D Academician D Author D Controller(Owner, Administrator, NASCAR employee) D Historian D Researcher D Other, please specify:

Past NASCAR Affiliation: (Choose as many as apply)

D Reporter D Academician D Author D Controller (Owner, Administrator, NASCAR employee) D Historian D Researcher D Other, please specify:

Total Years of Affiliation:

D1-5 D 6 10 D 11-15 D 16-20 Dover 20

Education level:

D High School D College degree D Masters degree DPh.D.

48 Appendix2

An Investigation of the Reasons forNASCAR Success - Round One Instrument

The followingvariables have been identified from literature as having an impact on NASCAR. Circle Yes if your perception of the issue is that it is important to the success of NASCAR, circle No if it is not important to the success of NASCAR. Add comments as necessary. Additional issues may be added.

Statement Important? Comments

1. France familyleadership Yes No

2. Monopoly issues Yes No

3. Constant change of sport Yes No

4. Non taxpayer supported facilities Yes No

5. Good decision making Yes No

6. NASCAR an accepted sport Yes No

7. NASCAR has a reactive nature Yes No

8. Fan friendly Yes No

9. Fans identify with cars Yes No

10. Good entertainment Yes No

11. Level of competition Yes No

12. Fans feel part of "NASCAR family" Yes No

13. RJR sponsorship Yes No 14. Direct factory support Yes No

15. Television coverage Yes No

16. Modern speedways, fan amenities Yes No

17. Female audience Yes No

18. Community support Yes No

19. Drivers/personalities Yes No

20. Uniformrules Yes No

21. Safety Yes No

49 22. National championship Yes No

23. Team concept Yes No

24. Money involved Yes No

25. Institution of NASCAR Yes No

Please add your own statements:

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Name: ------

Date completed: ------

50 Appendix3

Sample Round TwoInstrument

The following variables have been identifiedfrom literature as having an impact on NASCAR. Please rate the variable statements according to your perception of their impact in determining the success of NASCAR according to the scale of 5 (critical) to 1 (not critical) . •

• Statement I I I Comments 1. France family leadership 1- 2 3 4 -- 5 UD 2. Monopoly issues 1 2 3 4 5 UD 3. Constant change of sport 1 2 3 4 5 UD 4. Non taxpayer support facilities 1 2 3 4 5 UD 5. Good decision making 1 2 3 4 5 UD 6. NASCAR an accepted sport 1 2 3 4 5 UD 7. NASCAR has a reactive nature 1 2 3 4 5 UD 8. Fan friendly 1 2 3 4 5 UD 9. Fans identify with cars 1 2 3 4 5 UD 10. Good entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 UD 11. Level of competition 1 2 3 4 5 UD 12. Fans feel part of "NASCAR family" 1 2 3 4 5 UD 13. RJR sponsorship 1 2 3 4 5 UD 14. Direct factory support 1 2 3 4 5 UD 15. Television coverage 1 2 3 4 5 UD 16. Modern speedways, fan amenities 1 2 3 4 5 UD 17. Female audience 1 2 3 4 5 UD 18. Community support 1 2 3 4 5 UD 19. Drivers/personalities 1 2 3 4 5 UD 20. Uniform rules 1 2 3 4 5 UD 21. Safety 1 2 3 4 5 UD 22. National championship 1 2 3 4 5 UD 23. Team concept 1 2 3 4 5 UD

51 24. Money involved 1 2 3 4 5 UD 25. Institution of NASCAR 1 2 3 4 5 UD

Please add and rate your own statements:

26. 1 2 3 4 5 27. 1 2 3 4 5 28. 1 2 3 4 5 29. 1 2 3 4 5 30. 1 2 3 4 5

52 Appendix4

An Investigation of the Reasonsfor NASCAR Success - Round Two

The followingvariables are listed in order of percentile rank of importance to the success of NASCAR according to responses of panel members. The percentage listed represents the percentage of the panel that answered, "yes" that the issue is important to the success of NASCAR. For this round, assign a de- gree of importance to each variable, from1 (unimportant to 5 ( critically important). Following the initial 25 variables are additional variables added by panel members.

i:: i:: � � t::: t::: 0 a 0 ..... t::: 0.. i:: 0 ...... a � ...... s i:: >, t::: ...... � � ....� a 0 t::: ...= -.....� & >, 0 � .Q � � ] C) ::" "O ...... a 0 ...... i:: s0 lo. 0 ::J r:/) � j u 0.

1. Fans feelpart of "NASCARfamily" (100%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 2. Drivers/Personalities(100%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 3. France familyleadership (97%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 4. Good entertainment (97%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 5. Television coverage (97%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 6. Good decision making (97%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 7. Fan friendly (94%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 8. Fans identify with cars (90%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 9. Female audience (87%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN

10. NASCARan accepted sport (84%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 11. Level of competition (84%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 12. National championship (81 %) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 13. Money involved (81%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 14. Institution of NASCAR(81 % ) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 15. Modem speedways, fanamenities (77%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 16. Safety(74%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 17. Community support (74%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 18. RJR sponsorship (71 %) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 19. Uniform rules (68%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 20. Team concept (65%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN 21. Direct factorysupport ( 65%) 1 2 3 4 5 DN

53 3 4 5 DN 22. Monopoly issues (65%) 1 2 4 DN 23. Constant change of sport (55%) 1 2 3 5 DN 24. Non taxpayer support of facilities (52%) 1 2 3 4 5 3 5 DN 25. NASCAR has a reactive nature (45%) 1 2 4

Additional variables suggested by panel members: 4 DN 26. Decline of stick and ball sports 1 2 3 5 4 5 DN 27. Consistent, close, competitive racing 1 2 3 4 5 DN 28. Cost containment forteams 1 2 3 3 4 5 DN 29. Cost containment forfans 1 2 4 5 DN 30. Nextel title sponsorship 1 2 3 4 5 DN 31. Development of major souvenir trade 1 2 3 4 DN 32. Realignment of schedule 1 2 3 5 4 5 DN 33. Length of season 1 2 3 34. Tracks all over the country (not just the south) 2 4 5 DN 1 3 35. Mainstream marketing of sport 3 4 5 DN 1 2 36. Family sport image 2 3 4 5 DN 1 37. Product sponsorship DN 1 2 3 4 5 38. Role of sponsors 3 5 DN 1 2 4 39. Accessibility of drivers 1 2 3 4 5 DN 40. Mainstream media acceptance DN 1 2 3 4 5

Date completed: ------

54 Appendix 5 Task 1

An Examination of NASCAR Success - Round Three Your Name:

There are three separate tasks included in this round. Listed below are the three tasks with instructions foreach. Task #1 - Confirm or change your response as to level of importance the stated variable has to the success of NASCAR. Task #2 - Rate the performance of NASCAR in this area for each of the three leadership eras. Task #3 - Reword statements as you see appropriate.

Each task is a separate instrument, please complete each task. Return informationis on the last page.

TASK #1 - Confirming/Changing Individual Responses Listed below are the statements from round two. They are divided into three groups according to importance rating response rates. Listed foreach statement is the group response rate for critically and very important; your individual response (5 - critically important, 4 - very important, 3 - moderately important, 2 - somewhat important, 1 - unimportant)

...... i::: i::: ...... "' ...... "'.... i::: 0 ...... "' 0 Os ...... Os i::: 0 ...... s Os ...... s .£3 i::: ;;,...... s � ...... "' ...... 0 0 .... "' Q) Os i::: 0 ...c::: ...... ?;> Statement � ...."' ...... s � � Q) Q) "O ;;,... .� 75% or more of Group rank at critical (5) I Individual s" 0 .... .-;:::: i::: ·a 0s Q) .... 0 very important ( 4) Response ConfirmResponse ;::) Cf) ::;s > u Q

If 1. Drivers/Personalities(97%) 4 YesO NoO No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 2. Television coverage (93%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 3. Good entertainment (90%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 4. Fans feelpart of 'NASCAR'family (87%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 5. Fan friendly(87%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 6. Good decision making (83%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 7. Level of competition (83%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO

55 ...... =ell ...... =ell t:: =ell t:: 0 ...... 0 0...... 0...... 0 ...... s =ell 0...... s ...... ell= ...... >, 0 ...... s � 0 ell -Cl) 0.. >, t:: ...... 0 ..c:: ell Statement � ...... s -cil 12 Cl) Cl) ...... "O >, 75% or more of Group rank at critical (5) I Individual s" 0 .... -.-<;::::� ·s s0 Cl) .... 0= very important (4) Response ConfirmResponse � r.n � > u A

8. Consistent, close, competitive racing (83%) 3 Yes O NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 9. Accessibility of drivers (83%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 10. Mainstream media acceptance (83%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 11. Mainstream marketing of sport (77%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 12. Family sport image (77%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 13. Safety (73%) 2 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 14. Product sponsorship (73%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 15. Role of sponsors (73%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 16. Modem speedways, fan amenities (70%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 17. Tracks all over the country (70%) 5 Yes O NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 18. Cost containment for teams (67%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 19. Cost containment for fans (67%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 20. Community support (60%) 1 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 21. Female audience (57%) 1 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 22. National championship (57%) 1 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 ONO 23. Money involved (57%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 24. Uniformrules (57%) 1 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 25. France family leadership (53%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO

56 ...... c:: c:: ce ...... ce t:: c:: t:: 0 ...... ce 0 0...... c:: 0 ...... s s ...... ro c:: ->. .... � ce ...... 0 a - 0 ...... ro -Q) 0.. ->...... 0...... c:: ce � s -ro ] Statement Q) Q).... "Cj - ...... 75% or moreof Group rank at critical (5) I Individual ...... a 0 c ...... c:: c:: 0s Q) .... 0 very important (4) Response Confirm Response ;:J r/') :::8 > u Ci

26. NASCAR an accepted sport (53%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 27. Institution of NASCAR (50%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 28. Nextel title sponsorship (50%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 29. Development of major souvenir trade (50%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 30. Fans identify with cars ( 47%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 31. Length of season, number of races (43%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 32. RJR sponsorship ( 40%) 1 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 33. Direct factorysupport ( 40%) 3 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 34. Tracks all over the country (40%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 35. Monopoly issues (33%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 36. Team concept (30%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 37. Decline of stick and ball sports (30%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 38. Non taxpayer support of facilities (23%) 4 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 39. Constant change of sport (17%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO 40. NASCAR has a reactive nature (13%) 5 YesO NoO If No - Change my response to: 10 20 30 40 50 DNO

57 Appendix 5 Task 2

Rating Performance in LeadershipEras

Please rate the performance of NASCAR on the following statements for each leadership era.

Bill France Sr. Leadership Era Bill France Jr. Leadership Era Brian France Leadership Era

u

1. Drivers/Personalities 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 2. Television coverage 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 3. Good entertainment 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 4. Fans feel part of 'NASCAR' family 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 5. Fan friendly 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 6. Good decision making 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 7. Level of competition 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 8. Consistent, close, competitive racing 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 9. Accessibility of drivers 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 10. Mainstream media acceptance 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 11. Mainstream marketing of sport 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10

58 Bill France Sr. Leadership Era Bill FranceJr. LeadershipEra Brian FranceLeadership Era

.El.....

12. Family sport image 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 JD 20 10 13. Safety 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 14. Product sponsorship 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 15. Role of sponsors 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 16. Modern speedways, fan amenities 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 17. Tracks all over the country 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 18. Cost containment forteams 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 19. Cost containment forfans 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 20. Community support 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 21. Female audience 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 22. National championship 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 23. Money involved 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 lD 24. Uniform rules 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 25. France familyleadership 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 26. NASCAR an accepted sport 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 27. Institution of NASCAR 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 28. Nextel title sponsorship 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 29. Development of major souvenir trade 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 lD 50 40 30 2010

59 Bill France Sr. Leadership Era Bill France Jr. Leadership Era Brian France Leadership Era

u� u� u� i:: � § � �u � c<:S � �u � § � u � E u u � � E u i:: u � E u i:: u .... § .... c<:S i:: u .... c<:S i:: § § u u § c<:S § c<:S .s E § § .s E § .s E E �.... E...... § �...... § § �...... § � .s § E.... � .s ....E � .s .... .s.... �.... .s...... s...... s...... s.... �.... .s.... � � .s .s � � � � � � -�.... � � � �.... � .... -�.... � � .g� .. s.... � � � .c= "O .... � � � .c= "O .... � � .c= "O .... 0.. 0 0 0.. bl) 0 0 0.. bl) 0 0 ;:::, .!:!) 0 0 0 0 ;:::, 0 0 ;:::, 0 0 r;/) ::c: c, � z z r;/) ffi c3 � z r;/) ffi c, �

30. Fans identify with cars 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 31. Length of season, number of races 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 32. RJR sponsorship 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 33. Direct factory support 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 34. Tracks all over the country 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 35. Monopoly issues 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 2010 36. Team concept 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 3 7. Decline of stick and ball sports 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 38. Non taxpayer support of facilities 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 39. Constant change of sport 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 40. NASCAR has a reactive nature 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10

60 Appendix 5 Task 3

Round 3 • Task #3 - Rewording of Statements

Below are the 40 statements utilized in this study. If you would like to reword any statement forit to bet­ ter reflectthe importance of NASCAR, please do so in the space next to each statement.

1. Drivers/Personalities: 2. Television coverage: 3. Good entertainment: 4. Fans feelpart of 'NASCAR' family: 5. Fan friendly: 6. Good decision making: 7. Level of competition: 8. Consistent, close, competitive racing: 9. Accessibility of drivers:

10. Mainstream media acceptance: 11. Mainstream marketing of sport: 12. Family sport image: 13. Safety: 14. Product sponsorship: 15. Role of sponsors: 16. Modem speedways, fanamenities: 17. Tracks all over the country: 18. Cost containment forteams: 19. Cost containment forfans: 20. Community support: 21. Female audience: 22. National championship: 23. Money involved: 24. Uniform rules: 25. France family leadership: 26. NASCAR an accepted sport: 27. Institution of NASCAR:

61 28. Nextel title sponsorship: 29. Development of major souvenir trade: 30. Fans identify with cars: 31. Length of season, number of races: 32. RJR sponsorship: 33. Direct factory support: 34. Tracks all over the country: 35. Monopoly issues: 36. Team concept: 37. Decline of stick and ball sports: 38. Non taxpayer support of facilities: 39. Constant change of sport: 40. NASCAR has a reactive nature:

62 Table 1

Era Ratings

. "' ....."' E! c,3 � ..:::; p::i 8 p::i Q.) 0.. Q.) 0.. (.) ...... (.) ...... 1; .9' c:: ..c: c:: ..c:

Mean Mean Mean

1. Drivers/Personalities 4.1 4.1 3.4 2. Television coverage 2.6 3.3 4.3 3. Good entertainment 3.8 4.0 3.4 4. Fans feel part of 'NASCAR' family 3.8 4.0 3.2 5. Fan friendly 4.0 4.0 3.2 6. Good decision making 4.0 4.0 3.4 7. Level of competition 3.7 3.8 3.3 8. Consistent, close, competitive racing 3.4 3.6 3.0 9. Accessibility of drivers 4.5 4.0 2.6

10. Mainstream media acceptance 2.9 3.8 4.0 11. Mainstream marketing of sport 2.6 3.6 4.1 12. Family sport image 2.5 3.4 4.2 13. Safety 2.5 3.2 3.9 14. Product sponsorship 2.7 4.0 4.1 15. Role of sponsors 2.7 3.9 4.1 16. Modern speedways, fan amenities 2.9 3.7 4.0 17. Tracks all over the country 2.6 3.5 4.3 18. Cost containment for teams 3.2 2.9 2.5 19. Cost containment for fans 3.2 2.7 2.2 20. Community support 2.9 3.5 3.5 21. Female audience 2.5 3.4 3.9 22. National championship 3.3 3.7 4.2 23. Money involved 2.9 3.6 3.8 24. Uniform rules 3.0 3.4 3.4

63 25. France family leadership 4.1 4.1 3.6 27. Institution of NASCAR 3.0 3.8 3.8 28. Nextel title sponsorship 1.4 2.0 4.0 29. Development of major souvenir trade 2.0 3.6 4.1 30. Fans identify with cars 4.2 3.8 3.3 31. Length of season, number of races 3.4 3.2 2.9 32. RJR sponsorship 3.6 4.3 1.7 33. Direct factory support 3.7 3.4 3.1 34. Realignment of schedule 2.9 3.2 4:0 35. Monopoly issues 3.1 3.3 3.5 36. Team concept 2.9 3.4 3.7 37. Decline of stick and ball sports 2.0 2.7 3.0 38. Non taxpayer support of facilities 3.0 3.4 3.4 39. Constant change of sport 2.8 3.2 3.5 40. NASCAR has a reactive nature 2.9 3.0 3.1

64 Reference List

Agoglia, J. & Bronson, C., (1999). Racing to Retail, Sporting Goods Business, Febru­ ary 8, p. 72-74.

Akins, R.B.; Tolson, H.; & Cole, B.R. (2005). Stability of Response Characteristics of a Delphi Panel: Application of Bootstrap Data Expansion, BMC Medical Research Methodolo­ gy, 5, p. 37-49.

Alderman, D.H.; Mitchell, P.W.; Webb, J.T. & Hanak, D. (2003). Carolina Thunder Re­ visited: Toward a Transcultural View of Winston Cup Racing, The Professional Geographer, 55, (2), p. 238-249.

Alley, J.D. (1985). Futures Research Data and General Education Reform. Report No. (HE-018-602). Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Portland, OR.

Amato, C.; Bodkin, C.D. & Peters, C. (2010). Building a Fan Community Through the Folklore of NASCAR, InternationalJournal of Sport Management and Marketing, 8, (1/2), p. 5- 20.

Amato, C.H.; Peters, C.L.C.; & Shao, A.T. (2005). An Exploratory Investigation Into NASCAR Fan Culture, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, (2), p. 71-83.

Arneson, E. (1997). Circuits Juggle Growth, Loyal Fans, USA Today, May 23, Sec. E p. 11.

Barnette, J.J.; Danielson, L.C. & Algozzine, R.F. (1978). Delphi Methodology: An Empirical Investigation, Educational Research Quarterly, �(1), p. 67-73.

Baucus, M.; Norton, W.I.; Davis-Sramek, B. & Meek, W. (2008). Cheating and NASCAR: Who's at the Wheel? Business Horizons, 51, (5), p. 379-389.

Bechtel, M. (2010). He Crashed Me So I Crashed Him Back: The True Story of the Year the King, Jaws, Earnhardt,and the Rest of NASCAR's Feudin', Fightin',Good ol' Boys Put Stock Car Racing on the Map. Little, Brown and Co., New York, NY.

Beekman, S. (2010). NASCAR Nation: A History of Stock Car Racing in the United States. Praeger, Santa Barbara, CA.

Bennis, W. (1984). The Four Competencies of Leadership, Training Development Journal, 38, p. 14-19.

Bernthal, M.J. & Regan. (2001). NASCAR's "Customer Gap": Are Fan's Perceptions Keeping Up with Their Expectations? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10, (4), p. 193-201.

65 Bernthal, M.J. & Regan. (2004). The Economic Impact of a NASCAR Race Track on a Rural Community and Region, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, (1), p. 27-34.

Bledsoe, J. (1975). Stock Car Racing Book. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY.

Bonham, D. (1999). The Secret Formula of NASCAR's Success, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal,March 29-April 4, p. 42.

Bothner, M.S.; Joeng-han Kang; & Stuart, T.E. (2007). Competitive Crowding and Risk Taking in a Tournament: Evidence from NASCAR Racing, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, (2), p. 208-247.

Branham, H.A. (2010). Bill France, Jr.: The Man Who Made NASCAR. Triumph, Chicago, IL.

Brockinton, L. (2001). Title Sponsors of Races Commit to TV Time, too, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, May 21-27, p. 30.

Broker, T. (2009). Outracing the Market: A NASCAR Portfolioas a Test Case of Re­ turns and Diversification, Journalof Applied Economics & Policy, 28, (1), p. 57-68.

Brown, A. (Ed.), (1984). The History of the American Speedway: Past and Present. Slideways Publications, Marne, Ml.

Brown, B.B. (1968). Delphi Process: A Methodology Used forthe Elicitation of Opi­ nions of Experts. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA:

Brown, C.A. (2007). The Opt-in/Opt-out Feature in a Multi-Stage Delphi Method Study, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, (2), p. 135-144.

Brunt, R., (1992). Engaging With the Popular: Audiences for Mass Culture and What to Say About Them. In Nelson, C., Treichler, P. & Grossberg, L. (Ed.), Cultural Studies (p. 69-77). Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York, NY.

Buckley, J. (2005). Eyewitness NASCAR. DK Publications, New York, NY.

Butterfield,L.D.; Borgen, W.A.; Amundson, N.E. & Maglio, A-S.T. (2005). Fifty Years of the Critical Incident Technique: 1954-2004 and Beyond, Qualitative Research, 4, (1), No­ vember, pp. 475-497.

Butterworth, W.F. (1971). The High Wind: The Story of NASCAR Racing. Grosset and Dunlap, Inc. (A.W.W. Norton Book), New York, NY.

66 Byrnes, N. (1994). The Powers Behind the Vroooom, Financial World, 163, (8), p. 52- 65.

Canfield, J.. (2003). Chicken Soup for the NASCAR Soul: Inspirational Stories of Cou­ rage, Speed, and Overcoming Adversity. Health Communications, Deerfield Beach,FL.

Chalip, L. (1992). The Construction and Use of Polycemic Structures: Olympic Les­ sons for Sport Marketing, Journal of Sport Marketing, 6, p. 87-98.

Chou, C. (2002). Developing theE-Delphi System: A Web-based Forecasting Tool for Educational Research, British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, (2), p. 233-237.

Clark, L. (2008). One Helluva Ride: How NASCAR Swept the Nation. Villard, New York, NY.

Coats, B. (1997). July's Gateway 300 Gets Boost as Winston Cup Drivers Sign On, St. LouisDispatch, June 10, Sec. C, p. 2.

Connaughton, J.E. & Madsen, R.A.. (2007). TheEconomic Impacts of the North Caro­ lina Motor Sports Industry, Economic Development Quarterly, 21, (2), p. 185-197.

Conrad, S. (1992). An Analysis of Stock Car Racing in the Greater Toledo Area. Un­ published Master's Project, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.

Copeland, R.; Frisby, W. & McCarville, R. (1996). Understanding the Sport Sponsor­ ship Process From a Corporate Perspective, Journal of Sport Management, 10, p. 32-48.

Craft, J. (1993). The Anatomy and Development of the Stock Car. Motorbooks Interna­ tional, Osceola, WI.

Dajani, J.S.; Sincoff, M.Z. & Talley, W.K. (1979). Stability and Agreement Criteria for the Termination of Delphi Studies, Technological Forecasting and Social change, 13, p. 83-90.

Dalakas, V. & Levin, A.M. (2005). The Balance Theory Domino: How Sponsorships May Elicit Negative Consumer Attitudes, Advances in Consumer Research, 32, p. 91-97.

Dalkey, N. & Helmer, 0. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use ofExperts, Management Science, 9, (3), 458-467.

Dean, D.H. (2004). Evaluating Potential Brand Associations Through Conjoint Analysis and Market Simulations, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13, (7), p. 505-513.

Daud, R., Ismail, M. and Omar, Z. (2010). Exploring Competencies, Professional Safe­ ty,55, (10), p. 39-47.

67 Dean, J.E.; Hutchinson, A.; Kamisha, H.E. & Lawson, R. (2007). Using a Multi­ method, User Centered, Prospective Hazard Analysis to Assess Care Quality and Patient Safety in a Care Pathway, BMC Health Services Research, 7, p. 89-99.

Dees, W.; Bennett, G. & Ferreira, M. (2010). Personality Fit in NASCAR: An Evalua­ tion of Driver-Sponsor Congruence and its Impact on Sponsorship Effectiveness Outcomes, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, (1), p. 25-35.

DeGaris, L.; West. C. & Dodds, M. (2009). Leveraging and Activating NASCAR spon­ sorships with NASCAR-linked Sales, Journal of Sponsorship, 3, (1), p. 88-97.

deLeon, P. (2005). I'm Vexed Again/Perplexed Again ... : An Alternative View of the Politics ofldeas, The Policy Studies Journal, 33, (1), p. 107-116.

Demspey, P.A. & Dempsey, A.O. (1986). The Research Process in Nursing. Jones and Bartlett. Boston, MA.

Dole, C.A. (2007). Risk Taking in NASCAR: An Examination of Compensating Beha­ vior and TournamentTheory in Racing, Journalof Economics & Economic Education Research, 8, (2), p. 47-64.

Donovan, B. (2008). Hard Driving: The Wendell Scott Story: The American Odyssey of NASCAR's First Black Driver. Steerforth Press, Hanover, NH.

Dunnavant, K. (1997). Caution, Sharp Curves Ahead, Business Week, Feb. 24, p. 85.

Durr, D.; Eaton, D.H. & Broker, T. (2009). Outracing the Market: A NASCAR Portfo­ lio as a Test Case of Returnsand Diversification,Journal of AppliedEconomics and Policy, 28, (1), p. 57-68

Elder, L. & Greene, S. (2007). The Myth of "Security Moms" and "NASCAR Dads": Parenthood, Political Stereotypes, and the 2004 Election, Social Science Quarterly, 88, (1), March, p. 1-19.

Engel, L.K. (1974). The Complete Book of NASCAR Stock Car Racing, (Rev. Ed.), Four Winds Press, New York, NY.

Fielden, G. (1989a). Forty Years of Stock Car Racing: Big Bucks and Boycotts, 1965- 1971,Vol. III. GalfieldPress, Pinehurst, SC.

Fielden, G. (1989b ). Forty Years of Stock Car Racing: The Superspeedway Boom, 1959-1964, Vol.. II. Galfield Press, Pinehurst,SC.

Fielden, G. (1990a). Forty Years of Stock Car Racing: The Beginning, 1949-1958, Vol. I (Rev. ed.). GalfieldPress, Pinehurst, SC.

68 Fielden, G. (1990b). Forty Years of Stock Car Racing: The Modern Era, 1972-1989, Vol. IV. GalfieldPress, Pinehurst, SC.

Fielden, G. (1990c). Rumblin' Ragtops, The History of NASCAR's Fabulous Converti­ ble Division and Speedway Division. Galfield Press, Pinehurst, SC.

Fielden, G. (2003). NASCAR Chronicle. Publications International LTD, Lincolnwood, IL.

Fielden, G. & Hallman, B. (2010). NASCAR The Complete History. Publications Inter­ national Ltd., Lincolnwood, IL.

Fielden, G. (1993). High Speed at Low Tide. Galfield Press,Surfside Beach, SC.

Fischer, R.G. (1978). The Delphi Method: A Description, Review, and Criticism, Jour­ nal of Academic Librarianship, 4, (2), p. 64-70.

Fizel, J. (2006). Handbook of Sports Economics Research. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.

Flint, W. & Eitzen D. (1987). ProfessionalSports Team Ownership and Entrepreneurial Capitalism, Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, p. 17-27.

Frank, M. (2001). TV Deal Rev Up NASCAR Viewers, The News Journal. WWW.Delawareonline.com. Tuesday, June 5.

Fredline, E. & Faulkner, B. (2002). Variations in Residents' Reactions to Major Motors­ port Events: Why Residents Perceive the Impacts of Events Different!y, Event Management, 7, (2), p. 115-125.

Fryer, J. (2010). NASCAR Deserves Credit forPositive Change, USA Today, May 24.

Gage, J. (2009). NASCAR Needs to Get Back to its Roots, Forbes, September 25.

Gaylord, J. (1991). A Factor in the Formation and Development of Professional Sports Leagues. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

Gaylord, J. & Groves, D.L. (1993). Factors in the Formation and Development of Pro­ fessionalSport Leagues, International Review of Modern Sociology, 23, p. 53-74.

Giangola, A. (2010). The Weekend Starts on Wednesday: True Stories of Remarkable NASCAR Fans. Motorbooks, Minneapolis, MN.

Gill, M. (2008). Corporations Brought to You by NASCAR: Rhetorical Identification Through Sponsorship, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 9, (3), p. 180- 192.

69 Girdler, A. (1988). Stock Car Racers: The History and Folklore of NASCAR'sPremier Series. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.

Golenbock, P. (1993). American Zoom. Macmillan Publishing, New York, NY.

Golenbock, P. & Fielden, G. (1997). The Stock Car Racing Encyclopedia. MacMillan, Inc., New York, NY.

Gonclaves, V.F. & Aguas,P.M. (1997). The Concept of LifeCycle: An Application to the Tourist Product, Journalof Travel Research, 3, p. 12-21.

Goodyear Racing Attendance Report, (1996). Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron,OH.

Goodyear Racing Attendance Report, (1997). Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, OH.

Goodyear Racing Attendance Report, (1998). Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron,OH.

Haggerty, T. (1988). Designing Control and Information Systems in Sport Organiza­ tions: A CybernaticPerspective, Journal of Sport Management, 2, p. 53-63.

Hagstrom, R.G. (1998). The NASCAR Way: The Business That Drives the Sport. Wi­ ley, New York, NY.

Hall, D. & Hall S.G. (2006). American Icons: An Encyclopedia of the People, Places, and Thingsthat have Shaped Our Culture. Greenwood Press, Westport,CT.

Hall, R.L. (2002). BeforeNASCAR: The Corporateand Civic Promotion of Automo­ bile Racing in the American South, 1903-1927, Journal of SouthernHistory, 68, (3), p. 629-642.

Hallowell, M.R. & Gambatese, J.A. (2010). Qualitative Research: Application of the Delphi Method to CEM Research, Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, 136 (1), p. 99-107.

Hansen, H. & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors AffectingAttendance at ProfessionalSport Events, Journalof Sport Management, 3, p. 15-32.

Harman, A.J. & Press, S.J. (1975). Collectingand Analyzing Expert Group Judgment Data. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Hartman, A. (1981). Reaching Consensus Using the Delphi, Educational Leadership, 38 (6), p. 495-497.

70 Hasson, F.; Keeney, S. & McKenna, H. (2000). Research Guidelines for the Delphi Sur­ vey Technique., Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, (4), p. 1008-1015.

Helmer, 0. (1975). Foreward, in H.A. Linstone & M. Turoff(Eds.), The Delphi Me­ thod: Techniques and Applications. pp. 17-36. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Helmer, 0. (1983). Looking Forward: A Guide to Futures Research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hemphill, P. (1997). Wheels: A Season on the NASCAR Winston Cup Circuit. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Holey, E.A.; Feeley, J.L.; Dixon, J. & Whittaker, V.J. (2007). An Exploration of the Use of Simple Statistics to Measure Consensus and Stability in Delphi Studies, BMC Medical Re­ search Methodology, 7, p. 52-61

Harrow, R. & Swatek, K. (2009). A Checkered Future for NASCAR? BusinessWeek Online, p. 13.

Howard, T. (1995). Fast Feeders Rev Engines With NASCAR Sponsorships., Nation's Restaurant News, 29, (35), p. 4.

Howell, M.D. (1997). From Moonshine to Madison Avenue: A Cultural History of the NASCAR Winston Cup Series. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Bowling Green State Uni­ versity, Bowling Green, OH.

Hugenberg, L.W. & Hugenberg, B.S. (2008). If It Ain't Rubbin', It Ain't Racin': NASCAR, American Values, and Fandom, Journal of Popular Culture, 41, (4), p. 635-657.

Hurt, D.A. (2005). Dialed In? Geographic Expansion and Regional Identity in NASCAR's Nextel Cup Series. Southeastern Geographer, 45, (1), p. 120-137.

Jenkins, C. (2010). Many Woes Ease in NASCAR, Sponsors Seek Bargains, USA To­ day, February 9.

Jenkins, C. (2002). NASCAR: We're No. 2, USA Today.com, January 16.

Jerome, A.M. (2008). Toward Prescription: Testing the Rhetoric of Atonement's Ap­ plicability in the Athletic Arena, Public Relations Review, 34, (2), p. 124-134.

Jewett, L. (2000). Tracks of Tomorrow, Stock Car Racing, (35), (8), p. 24-25.

Kate, N.T. (1995). A Member of the Family, American Demographics, Marketing Tools, June, p. 53-62.

71 King, B. (2001 ). NASCAR Turns Growing Pains Into Gain, Street & Smith SportsBu­ siness Journal, Nov. 26-Dec. 2, p. 19-21.

Kinney, L.; McDaniel, S.R.; & DeGaris, L. (2008). Demographicand Psychographic Variables Predicting NASCAR Sponsor Brand Recall, Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsor­ ship, 9, (3), p. 169-179.

Kusz, K.W. (2007). From NASCAR Nation to Pat Tillman, Journalof Sport& Social Issues, 31, (1), p. 77-88.

Lame, H. & Casper, T.M.J. (2007). A Response to the Motion PictureTalladega Nights: The Ballad of Rickey Bobby, Journalof Sport & Social Issues, 31, (4), p. 434-439.

Lamm, M. (2000). Sport Sponsorship, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, Oct. 4- 10, p. 15.

Lapio Jr., R. & Morris, K. (2000). NASCAR: A Lesson in Integrated Relationship Marketing, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, (2), p. 85-95.

Lee, T. (2002). Gentleman Start Your Marketing Machines, St. LouisDispatch, Mar. 3, 2002.

Levin, J. (1997). Meeting Themes, Successful Meetings 1997, Southern Destinations Supplement, April, p. 1-7.

Levin, A.M. & Cameron, G. (2001). The Impact on Sports Sportsmanship on Consum­ ers' Brand Attitudes and Recall: The Case of NASCAR Fans, Journalof Current Issues and Re­ search in Advertising. 23, (2), p. 23-31.

Levin, A.M.; Beasley, F. & Gamble, T. (2004). Brand Loyalty of NASCAR Fans To­ wards Sponsors: The Impact of Fan Identification, International Journalof Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6, (1), p. 11-21.

Levin, A.M.; Beasley, F. & Gilson, R.L. (2008). NASCAR Fans' Responses to Current and Former NASCAR Sponsors: The Effectof Perceived Group Norms and Fan Identification, International Journalof Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 9, (3), p. 193-204.

Lindquist, T. (1973). Critical Tasks for the Secondary School Principalship of the Fu­ ture, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Oregon, OR

Lovell, B. (1992). Everybody Lovesa Winner, Automotive News, 66, (5440), p. 14i- 16i.

Ludwig, L. & Starr, S. (2005). Library as Place: Results of a Delphi Study, Journalof the Medical Library Association, 93, (3), p. 315-326.

72 MacGregor, J. & Evanitsky, 0. (2005). Sunday Money: Speed! Lust! Madness! Death!: A Hot Lap Around America with NASCAR. HarperCollins,New York, NY.

Mahar, J.; Paul, R. & Stone, L. (2005). An Examination of Stock Market Response to NASCAR Race Performance, The Marketing Management Journal, 15, (2), p. 80-86.

Manahan, D.W. (2004). NASCAR and Transculturalism, Current Anthroplogy, 45 (5), December, p. 574-575.

Marcopolos, L. (2006). Drafting Away fromIt All, Southern Cultures, 12, (1), p. 33-41.

McCulloch, A. & McMurran, M. (2007). The Features of a Good OffenderTreatment Programme Manual: A Delphi Survey of Experts, Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, (3), p. 265- 274.

McCraw, J. (1997). NASCAR '97, Popular Mechanics, 174, (5), p. 92-96.

McGuire, A. (2000). The History of NASCAR. Chelsea House Publishers, Philadel­ phia, PA.

Menzer, J. (2001). The Wildest Ride: A History of NASCAR (Or, How a Bunch of Good 01' Boys Built a Billion-dollar Industry out of Wrecking Cars. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Middleton, A. (2001). Halt the Building Boom, Stock Car Racing, 36, (2), p. 94.

Miller, L.T. & Simon, A. (2010). Racing White Black: How an African-American Stock-Car TeamMade its Mark on NASCAR. Seven Stories Press, New York, NY.

Morais, D. & Groves, D. (1997). A Typology forthe Understanding of Structure and Function of a Sports Industry: A Case Study of NASCAR, Visions in Leisure and Business, 16, (2), p. 16-49.

Morrison, J. (1996). The Skybox Syndrome, Marketing Computers, 16, (6), p. 38-42.

Nalbandian, J. (2001). The Manager as Political Leader, National Civic Review, 90, (1), p. 63-75.

Neiger, B.L.; Barnes, M.D.; Thackeray, R. & Lindman,N. (2001). Use of the Delphi Method and Nominal Group Technique in Front-End Market Segmentation, American Journal of Health Studies, 17, (3), p. 111-120.

Nelson, C.; Treichler, P. & Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural Studies: AnIntroduction. In Nelson, C., Treichler, P. and Grossberg, L. (Ed.), Cultural Studies (pp. 1-16). Routledge, Chap­ man and Hall, Inc., New York, NY.

73 Newman, J.I. & Giardina, M.D. (2007). A Detour Through"NASCAR NATION", In­ ternationalReview forthe Sociology of Sport, 42, (3), September, p. 289-308.

Newman, J.I. (2010). Neoliberalism's Last Lap? NASCAR Nation and the Cultural Pol­ itics of Sport, American Behavioral Scientist, 53, (1), p. 1511-1529.

Newman, J.I. & Beissel, A.S. (2009). The Limits of "NASCAR Nation": Sport and the "Recovery Movement" in Disjunctural Times, Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, (4), p. 517-539.

Newman,J.I. & Giardina, M.D. (2008). NASCAR and the "Southernization" of Ameri­ ca: Sponsorship, Subjectivity, and the Confederation of Identity, Cultural Studies/Critical Me­ thodologies, 8, ( 4), p. 479-506.

Norton, W.I.; Davis-Sramek, B. & Meek, W. (2008). Cheating and NASCAR: Who's at the Wheel? Business Horizons, 51, (5), p. 379-389.

Oga, J. (1998). Business Fluctuation and the Sport Industryin Japan: An Analysis of the Sport Industry from 1986 to 1993, Journal of Sport Management, 12, p. 63-75.

Oldfield,B. (1919). Barney Oldfield'sBook forthe Motorist. Maynard and Company, New York, NY.

Oliver, S. (1995). A Fan-Friendly Sport, Forbes, 156, 1, p. 70-74.

Ownby, T. (1998). Manhood, Memory, and White Men's Sports in the Recent American South, International Journalfor the History of Sport, 15, (2), p. 113-118.

Perry, A. & Gilbody, S. (2009). User-definedOutcomes in Mental Health: A Qualita­ tive Study and Consensus Development Exercise, Journalof Mental Health, 18, (5), p. 415-423.

Pierce, D.S. (2010). Real NASCAR: WhiteLightning, Red Clay, and Big Bill France. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Pillsbury, R. (1995). Stock Car Racing. In K.B. Raitz (Ed.), The Theater of Sport (pp. 270-295). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Plymire, D.C. (2010). How Indy Got its Groove Back? Celebrity Culture and the Indy Racing League, InternationalJournal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 8, (1/2), pp. 145-159.

Polit, D.F. & Hungler, B.P. (1978). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA.

Poole, M. (1999b ). Cart Roars Back fromDark Days, But Road to Next Level Runs Uphill, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, March 22-28, p. 24.

74 Poole, D. (1999a). NASCAR's Rise to TV's Big Leagues Creates Some Big Questions, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, November 29-December 5, p18.

Poole, M. (2000). NASCAR Faces Question, Not Crisis, As Market Determines its Fu­ ture, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, August 7-13, p. 13.

Pope, A. & Tollison, R. (2010). "Rubbin' is Racing": Evidence of the Peltzman Effect fromNASCAR, Public Choice, 142, (3/4), p. 207-513.

Pruitt, S.W.; Cornwell, T.B. & Clark, J.M. (2004). The NASCAR Phenomenon: Auto Racing Sponsorships and Shareholder Wealth, Journalof Advertising Research, 44, (3), p. 281- 296.

Regan, T.H. & Damonte. (1999). A Geo Economic Approach to South Carolina NASCAR Markets, Public Administration Quarterly, 23, (3), p. 295-312.

Rieger, W.G. (1986). Directions in Delphi Developments: Dissertations and their Quality, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 29, p. 195-204.

Rofe,J. (1999). Galaxy Will Use Fancard to Sharpen its Marketing Edge, Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal, March 29-April4, p. 12.

Ryan, N. (2010). NASCAR Teams, Track Go Extra Mile to Keep Sponsors Happy. USA Today, March 5.

Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Schaefer,A.R. (2005). The History of NASCAR. Capstone Press, Mankato, MN.

Scott, J. (1996a). Racing Past and Present. In B. Condler and M. Scully (Eds.), Racing Milestones, pp. 6-10. Trade Publishing Co.

Scott, J. (1996b). The Ruler of Racing. In B. Condler and M. Scully (Eds.), Racing Mi­ lestones, pp. 58-59, Trade Publishing Co.

Shackleford, B. (2002). Fixin' to Git: One Fan's Love Affairwith NASCAR's Winston Cup. Duke University Press, Durham,NC.

Shackleford,B.A. (1999). Masculinity, Hierarchy, and the Auto Racing Fraternity: The Pit Stop as a Celebration of Social Roles, Men & Masculinities, 2, (2), October, p. 180.

Smith, G.J. (1988). The Noble Sports Fan, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 12, (1), p. 54-65.

75 Somers, K.; Baker, G. & Isbell, C. (1984). How to Use theDelphi Technique to Fore­ cast TrainingNeeds, Performance and Instructional Journal,23, (4), p. 26-28.

Sonderegger, J. (1997). Sponsorship Money is all Over Auto Racing. St. Louis Dis­ patch, May 19, sec. BP, p. 11.

Soucie, D. (1994). EffectiveManagerial Leadership in Sport Organizations, Journal of Sport Management, 8, p. 1-13.

Spann, M.G. (2002). NASCAR Racing Fans: Cranking Up an Empirical Approach, Journalof Popular Culture,36, (2), p. 352-360.

Steinberg, S.R. & Kincheloe, J.L. (2009). Christotainment: Selling Jesus through Popu­ lar Culture, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Street & Smith SportsBusiness Journal(2000). Interactive Poll, November 27-December 3.

Swany, T. (1997). Winston Cup: AmericanThunder, Popular Science, 250, (3), p. 46- 48.

Syed, A.M.; Hjarnoe, L.; Krumkamp,R.; Reintjes, R. & Aro, A.R. (2010). Developing Policy Options forSARS and SARS-like diseases - A Delphi Study, Global Public Health, 5, (6), p. 663-675.

Taylor, A. (1996). Can NASCARRun in Bigger Circles? Fortune, 133, (2), p. 38.

Thompson, N. (2006) Driving with the Devil: SouthernMoonshine, Detroit Wheels, and the Birth of NASCAR, Crown Publishers, New York, NY.

Treece, E.W. & Treece, J.W. (1977). Elements of Research in Nursing. C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MO.

Vavrus, M.D. (2007). The Politics of NASCAR Dads Branded Media Paternity, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, (3), p. 245-261.

Wann, D.L. & Bascombe, N.L. (1993). Sports Fans: Measuring theDegree of Identifi­ cation With Their Team, InternationalJournal of Sport Psychology, 24, (1), p. 1-17.

Wann, D.L. & Waddill, P.J. (2007). Examining Reactions to the Dale Earnhardt Crash: The Importance of Identificationwith NASCAR Drivers, Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, (1), p. 94-109.

Watson, S. (2010). The Earnhardt NASCAR Dynasty: The Legacy of Dale S. and Dale Jr. Rosen Central, New York, NY.

76 Wayne, W.; Alkon, A. & Buchanan, E. (2008). Creating A State StrategicPlan forInte­ gratingServices forChildren Using Multiple Qualitative Methods, Maternal & Child Health Journal, 12, (1), p. 15-23.

Weaver, M.O. (1988). Using Delphi for Curriculum Development, Training and Deve­ lopmental Journal, 42, (2), p. 18-20.

Weese, W.J. (1995). Leadership and Organizational Culture: An Investigation of Big Ten and Mid-American Conference Campus Recreation Administration., Journalof Sport Man­ agement, 9, p. 119-134.

Wheeler, H. & Golenbock, P. (2010). Growing Up NASCAR: Racing's Most Outra­ geous Promoter Tells All. MBI Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.

Williams, D.L.; Boone, R. & Kinglsley, K.V. (2004). Teacher Beliefs About Education­ al Software: A Delphi Study, Journalof Research on Technology in Education, 36, (3), p. 213- 229.

Yin, Z. & Salaba, A. (2009). What is Next for Functional Requirements forBibliograph­ ic Records? A Delphi Study, LibraryQuarterly, 79, (2), p. 233-255.

Yost, M. (2007). The 200-mph Billboard: The Inside Storyof How Big Money Changed NASCAR. MBI Publishing Co. LLC, St. Paul, MN.

Young, S.J. & Jamieson, L.M. (2001). Delivery Methodology of the Delphi: A Com­ parison of Two Approaches, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19, (1), p. 42-58.

Young, T. & French, L. (1995). Myths and Legendsof the National Football League: TheFunction of Folklore in Sports, Psychology, 32, (3/4), p. 25-26.

77