That's entertainment? That depends on the viewers

Surely they didn't care how pretty it was. Fans who attended the first playoff game in the history of the Tampa Bay Rays baseball franchise Thursday were there to see one thing: a victory. Same goes for all the spectators who packed other baseball parks that day, will pack football stadiums this weekend, and will pack basketball arenas later this fall. Winning isn't everything -- it's the only thing, remember? If, in the process, those on hand get to see an event that's exhilarating, then consider it a bonus. But winning and entertainment aren't in an exclusive relationship. As Auburn football fans will attest, a 3-2 victory can be a beautiful thing.

And then there's NASCAR, which once again stands apart amid the crowded sports landscape, and not because there's no franchising, or because the athletes are more accessible to fans and reporters (yes, they are), or because the participants compete in protective firesuits at nearly 200 mph. No, there's another reason. In every other sport, it's all about winning and losing, period. In NASCAR, it's about winning and losing and the quality of the show -- three inseparable and equally important factors all woven into the fabric of the series from its earliest days at the Streamline Hotel.

It had to be that way, of course. This is a sport where fans of 42 drivers go home unhappy every Sunday, where there are diverse manufacturers and organizations that have to be brought together under one competitive umbrella, where unlike the NFL or Major League Baseball there's only one big event -- no offense, Nationwide Series -- every week. Founder Bill France Sr. was smart enough to realize that his circuit had to be entertaining to work, a fundamental NASCAR belief that's given birth from everything to rules changes designed to foster better competition, to the new Sprint Cup car, to the Chase.

How has it worked? Well, it's difficult to argue with the results -- the biggest motorsports series in North America, a lucrative television contract, tracks that span every part of the country except the Pacific Northwest. Oh sure, there are more than a few empty seats at some venues nowadays, and several teams are struggling to find sponsorships, but history tells us those are cyclical results of the economy rather than fundamental flaws in the sport. NASCAR has been around for 60 years now, and shows every sign of being around for 60 more. Big Bill knew what he was doing.

Yet you get the feeling that, with his enduring emphasis on level competition and entertainment value, the man also might have inadvertently created a monster. The racing of today, if you believe many of those who e-mail this Web site or populate chat boards, is about as fun to watch as marbles or cricket. There are grumbles aplenty about the car, the Chase, the rules, the drivers, the hierarchy of the series. Maybe France did such a good job, he created a level of unreachable entertainment expectation for his sport in an age of increasing automotive technology and media scrutiny. Maybe some in the grandstands are pining for a golden age that never really existed, glorifying a time when winning drivers finished laps, and not seconds, ahead of the rest of the field.

Or maybe the entire concept of entertainment has been skewed to the point where it's barely recognizable anymore. Take last weekend, for example. The final 50 laps at Kansas Speedway were riveting, as Carl Edwards slowly reeled in Jimmie Johnson, fell back, and then unleashed his last-gasp -- and ultimately futile -- slide job for the win. It was tremendous television, and even better live. In fact, almost every Sprint Cup event since Richmond has been solid, each with the right mix of trouble, frustration, and the championship contenders all elbow-to-elbow at the front (watch video).

So what do you hear Monday? "Oh, the racing was boring, another snoozer, I'm going to TiVo NASCAR next weekend and watch the drag race." OK, wait a minute here. I may not have grown up with this sport, and my definition of athletic entertainment may be less Junior vs. Jeff and more Chris Duhon going baseline at Chapel Hill, but I know great theatre when I see it. And Sunday at Kansas was great theatre. Could he catch him? Could he pass him? For an hour, those questions lingered in the air like the smell of burnt rubber after a crash. Everyone hung on the answer.

But no, for too many race fans, there is no place for drama and nuance anymore. They seem to hate fuel-mileage races, too, even though a series of events that produces a hand-wringing finish and the potential for an unlikely winner would be fully embraced by fans of almost any other league. They want absolute, full-tilt, unceasing end-to-end action, arguing that's the way it used to be, even though such a thing has hardly ever existed anywhere. Remember that two of the most heart-stopping Super Bowls in recent memory, New England's victory against Carolina in 2004 and loss to the New York Giants last season, were dogs until deep in the second half.

Entertainment will always be a personal preference. Some people like Deep Purple, and some (allegedly) like Celine Dion. Sports is no different. But there seems to be a little revisionist history going on in the case of NASCAR, where some folks will cling to the myth that it's always been better -- even if they didn't have the opportunity to see it on television -- while dismissing today's action almost out of spite. And what happened to winning and losing? Doesn't even register. They don't like Toyota, or they don't like Brian France, or they don't like the Chase, and they're allowing that one thing to color their perception of an entire sport, no matter who makes it to Victory Lane.

Oh, well. Evidently we'll have to wait another 60 years, when they'll talk about the good old days of Carl Edwards chasing down Jimmie Johnson, and how the current stuff just doesn't measure up.

The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.