Atlanta: Only one Cup weekend in 2011? Good move, or bad?

i understand your thinking...but there is more to this than just filling seats on Sunday. As California's Gillian Zucker points out, the Fontana track -- while the crowds may not look that great -- offers a marketing gateway for year-round promotion that is more important to the sport than just the bodies in those seats. LA is a year-round market, and so is Atlanta. We need to be looking at the full marketing impact over the entire year, not just two weekends at the track itself. does that make any sense?

I agree. We have too many Cup events. the season drags on too long. The sport is oversaturating the market. One race per track, except for the few that could/should have more, would make more sense. However, we're locked into this 36/38 week tour, that is simple too much. RJR execs realized that in 1972 when they persuaded NASCAR to cut back. It may be time again to cut back.
Yes, there are tracks --- Iowa, Nashville, and others -- that deserve/need a spot on the big schedule.
But as long as the sport is so tied to TV that TV dicates everything, we won't be able to solve the problem.
Adding Kentucky, dropping an Atlanta race and a California race, is only putting a bandaid on the problem.
We need to do a major re-think of the Cup tour schedule. And we also need to look at the Nationwide and Truck tours and consider them too.
We're tweaking when we may need some major surgery.
And Fox and ESPN need to get in the mix too and provide some guidance. Do a lot of races with mediocre ratings work? Or would fewer races, but events with more impact, provide more punch?
And I'll be honest -- Kentucky may be a great track, good market and all that, but does that solve any of the sport's big problems? In the grand scheme of things, does dropping the Atlanta market and adding Cincinnati solve anything? I fear we're doing too much plug-and-play and not enough strategic thinking here.

Johnson is wrong. The races don't become more special when you race there once a year - all it does at most tracks is create a market for more, and this is why most tracks have two dates. And if certain tracks deserve two dates then the bulk of them deserve two dates. Bristol and Richmond don't necessarily deserve two dates - they're both good racing markets but Bristol is the most overrated track in the sport and Richmond is just a short track, albiet one on steroids.

Why is there so much love for Iowa, North Wilkesboro, Rockingham, Memphis, and for adding another road course? Iowa is not a good track - it's far too small and even though it's pretty roomy it's still just a short track on 'roids. North Wilkesboro is a dead demographic and a dead racetrack. Rockingham is a dead demographic (shown by dismal attendances at the races it now runs). Memphis is gone. Milwaukee is far too small and flat to race on. The sport should not have even one road race because it is the least competitive form of racing that exists.

Atlanta can't sustain two Cup dates, yet it would benefit Gateway et al to give them dates? That's beyond ridiculous.

The tracks that deserve two dates are Daytona, Phoenix, Texas (though I'd prefer a Texas World Speedway clone near Houston than the controversial quad-oval near Forth Worth), Talladega, Dover, Charlotte, Pocono, Michigan, New Hampshire, Kansas, and maybe Fontana, Bristol, and Richmond.