Ganassi sets record straight on guaranteed spots for 500

Chip Ganassi explains why he, Roger Penske and Michael Andretti are advocating for guaranteed starting spots for the Indy 500. And they're right, given the way the current rules are written.

Last Thursday evening I was playing basketball with my son, when I got a call from AutoRacing1.com's President.

“Chip Ganassi wants to talk to you about the article you wrote," said Mark. “I’m going to give him your phone number; and I imagine he’ll be calling you soon."

Well, this ought to be interesting, I thought. But I had a pretty good feeling that the four-time Indianapolis 500 winning and 12-time Indy car series championship car owner was not taking time out of his busy schedule to tell me I was his favorite motorsports columnist.

And to be fair, last week’s column did take a stance in opposition to some of the comments from Ganassi, Roger Penske, Michael Andretti and others regarding guaranteed starting spots in the Indianapolis 500. Still, I was surprised Ganassi wanted to speak for a few reasons.

For one, the article was pretty benign. No shots were taken at anyone explicitly or even implicitly. Second, I made a conscious effort in the article to present the dissenting side, a position I noted had merit. Third, it was an opinion column. While I didn’t expect Ganassi to agree with me, what I wrote was well, my opinion. Nothing more.

Ultimately, it would take two phone calls for Ganassi and I to untangle a convoluted web so to speak. And when we did get to the root of the issue, it was not my opinion so much that he found objectionable; rather, it was the way in which his opinion had been conveyed to the public through not only myself but others that he took exception to.

Let me explain.

“I’m for the fastest 33 cars making the race"

During our first call last Saturday afternoon, Ganassi said something to the effect that he was for the fastest 33 cars making the race repeatedly. I didn’t know exactly how to respond at the time, largely because Ganassi’s comments from the recent Long Beach race weekend seemed to indicate the opposite.

"I can appreciate fans who want it to be open. I think there should be some space to enter if you show up, to have a real shot at entering the race. But having said that, I can make an argument that at Indy, that you have that opportunity with 33 spots and only 24 or 25 full-time entries. I would think that’s plenty of room."

Saying that he appreciated fans who wanted an open race logically indicated that he was in favor of the opposing side: guaranteed starters. He also seemed to concur with Roger Penske’s comments from St. Pete about guaranteeing spots in the 500. So, considering the fastest 33 cars and guaranteed starting spots have a high likelihood of not co-existing, how could someone be in favor of both principles? And if Ganassi was in fact for the fastest 33 making the race, well then, why on earth was he bringing a grievance to me? After all, I had just written an article advocating for that very thing he was seemingly so passionate in favor of.

Let’s just say I was a little confused. But as our conversation continued, I realized there was more to this discussion than myself and others had realized.

“Fans still think it’s the fastest 33, and it’s not."

Until now, no one in the media got the story right.

I was not amongst the gathered media when Ganassi spoke at Long Beach, so I can’t personally attest to the context. However, he insists they were made in a context far different than what has been conveyed publicly. Central to this position is the fact IMS changed the qualifying procedure and the fans and the media do not understand the implications in Ganassi’s view.

Under the revised format, the fastest 30 qualifiers on Saturday May 18^th (weather permitting) will be locked into the race, with positions 10-30 set, and positions 1-9 qualifying for the Fast Nine Shootout Sunday between the fastest nine on Saturday. Drivers that don’t make the top-30 will qualify for the last 3 positions Sunday, and therein lies the concern.

It is here where the real gristle in Ganassi’s grievance can be found. See, while a lot of people are advocating for the #Fastest 33 on social media and elsewhere, with the rules written the way they are, it’s highly likely that the fastest 33 cars won’t qualify for the race.

Ganassi presented a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t really work in quote form, so allow me to paraphrase.

Say you had 5-6 competitive cars that experienced difficulties on Saturday, when the 30-place qualifier posted a time around 220 miles per hour. Then say, that 4 or more cars going for one of the final three spots qualify over 230 mph on Sunday. In this scenario one of the cars that qualified over 230 wouldn’t make the field, despite being 10 miles per hour faster than the 30^th-place qualifier.

“I don’t know why they did that," continues Ganassi regarding the new rule. However, in his view “just bumping for the last row is unfair for everyone."

Granted, Ganassi’s hypothetical in which so many of the top teams have trouble Saturday is not a likely outcome. However, his point is unmistakable: under the current rules, it is highly likely that one of the fastest 33 cars does not qualify. Thus, those banging the drum for the #Fastest33 and maintaining the status quo, are in fact advocating for something that under the new rules does not actually exist.

“They changed the rules at the Speedway, and nobody writes that."

At this point, the tone of our discussion morphed from two men with last names ending in vowels firmly defending their positions to a discussion about the current conversation within the IndyCar community regarding this topic. Rather than being mad at me, I realized Ganassi was more frustrated with the framing of the topic, particularly the fact that no one (fans, media, etc.) was discussing the matter under the umbrella of the changes to the qualifying format.

That was true, I conceded. Nevertheless, I made clear to Ganassi that whatever the context of his comments so happened to be, the simple fact was fans, media and others believed him to be an advocate of something the majority seems to loathe: guaranteed starting spots in the Indianapolis 500. Furthermore, I conveyed my opinion that interpreting his comments as such, was not an unreasonable position to take.

“I did say those things, yes," he conceded.

However, if there was context to clarify, and if there was something that hadn’t been written which needed to be written, I made clear that AutoRacing1.com would be happy to provide the platform .

“Either open it up, or they need to guarantee spots."

Chip Ganassi congratulates Scott Dixon on winning the 2018 IndyCar title at Sonoma

To me the central question of my second conversation was how could Ganassi’s comments from Long Beach be reconciled with his stated desire for the fastest 33 cars to make the race.

As stated earlier, Ganassi believes scenarios exist in which “they’ll be cars out of the race, that deserve to be in." While making clear that he is for the traditional method of the fastest 33 cars qualifying, he also believes that the current qualifying procedure, leaves too many things to chance.

“So, performance over the course of an entire season, would be a better measure of determining positions in the series’ most important race than the current qualifying procedure which you believe leaves too many elements to chance?" was my question towards the end of our conversation.

“Well, those are your words, not mine" said Ganassi. But he also made clear that he didn’t disagree with me either. In other words, I think it’s fair to say that hierarchy of qualifying preference to Ganassi would be:

• The fastest 33 cars make the race
• The series guarantees a set amount of spots for full-time entrants
• The current rules, which Ganassi believes leaves too many elements to chance

In other words, Ganassi is not necessarily advocating for guaranteed starting spots in the Indianapolis 500. He just thinks guaranteeing spots would be a more fair way to determine the field than the format currently in place, which puts teams that encounter a problem Saturday in a real scramble for Sunday. Furthermore, if there are strong drivers that run into trouble Saturday, there’s a good chance “they’ll be cars out of the race that deserve to be in."

Wrapping up

Ultimately, the main takeaway from my discussion with Ganassi was the revised rules have been certainly an under-reported and arguably a non-reported element of the current Indy 500 qualifying debate. And although I am in no way advocating for guaranteed entries for numerous reasons, I get Ganassi’s point that performance over the course of an entire season may be a better barometer of whether someone should race at Indy, then say someone having an electronics problem Saturday, or losing a cylinder.

Of course, such matters have not really been a concern for the Speedway in recent years, as it has been something of a struggle to fill the 33-car field. However, Ganassi might be ahead of everyone else on this story currently. Remember, there is a new car coming in the next few years, which could result in a 2011 type scenario, with around 40 entries, as teams and drivers knew the equipment would be mothballed in matter of months. How to handle such a scenario will be something the Speedway has to address.

And while I didn’t specifically get a quote from Ganassi regarding such a scenario, I don’t think I’d be putting words in his mouth in saying that he agrees with me: the fastest 33 cars should race in that year’s Indianapolis 500. The only problem of course, as Chip Ganassi wants you to know, is that’s not the way the rules are currently written.

Brian Carroccio is a columnist for AutoRacing1. He can be contacted at BrianC@AutoRacing1.com.