Usually I shy away from penning my thoughts on the controversial issues in NASCAR. Not because I do not have sentiments about them, but because it’s rare that I have access to all of the data necessary to make a truly informed opinion. I have lived long enough to have experienced the embarrassment that comes with shooting your mouth off about things you don’t know enough about, and have learned the advantages of mentally harnessing my tongue before it gets me in trouble. Therefore you won’t see a column from me about the COT, leaded vs. unleaded fuel, or whether or not we should take the restrictor plates off of stock cars and sell them as curious pieces of memorabilia.

I have, however, spoken up on occasion when the subject seemed black-and-white enough that an opinion could easily be informed by even the folks in the outermost NASCAR circles. When NASCAR would not allow hard liquor sponsors when beer was the sponsor of the pole position, I said something. Despite not being a drinker myself, I could not see the logic.

Currently I do not find it logical that in a sponsor-driven sport, we are driving any sponsors out. Anyone reading this article has undoubtedly read the headlines concerning AT&T and Motorola. I guess the barn doors are already opened and the horses are already whooping it up in the orchards, but I still have to ask: why would any sponsor contract in NASCAR be so specific as to bar other sponsors? You can still shower your ‘official sponsors’ with enough love that they can feel really special, while still permitting others to get their chance in the sun.

I imagine that the decision to have exclusive sponsors at the expense of others was initially thought of as a great pitch when courting big companies. I think the ‘big picture’ was missed, however, and now we have the issues like AT&T vs. NASCAR.

I know that running a big business like NASCAR isn’t so simple, but I think exclusivity should be done away with, starting today.