Is it really that hard to figure out that it is marketability? Is it really? You seem to have a disdain for ‘ride buyers’ and ‘last name’ drivers. And she’s on a team that has an obviously placed winning secondary to sponsorship and nepotism. With Marco there only based on his last name and Mutoh (who was actually able to win in OW ladder series, something Danica never did) there because he brings a sponsor, you really have the audacity to claim she is there based on talent but with nothing to back up your claim?
She finished best among AGR drivers this year? Wow. She beat the last name, the ride buyer and squeaked by Kanaan who had the worst season of his IndyCar career and went winless for the first time since 2002. And she got him by less than ten points. That’s her career year vs his worst in the series.
I really can’t think of another place where people would try to argue that Danica is more talented than a guy that actually won an Atlantics Championship, finished 2nd in his first IRL start, has won more races in one month than she has in a career, has an Indy500 win and a 24 Hours of Daytona win. But somehow his Indy win was a fluke, and he sucks while Danica is the real deal? It’s laughable.
If she wasn’t as marketable as she is, she would be lucky to find a seat in sports car right now with male drivers that have demonstrated superior talent such as Simon Pagenaud and Jon Fogarty.
It’s unbelievable that you can tout her as a talent while criticizing the likes of Scott Speed and Elliott Sadler for being nothing more than a sponsors dream. Scott Speed won far more in his career development than Danica ever did, and has transitioned to a new form of racing with wins. Sadler wasn’t the top prospect coming out of Busch, but he was able to win, and he has won since coming to Cup. AT WORST, they’re the same thing as Danica. Marginal talents at best, that sponsors adore.
Here is a fun trick. Go to google, and do an image search on Danica Patrick. See if you can figure out what it is that makes her marketable, and allows what is a demonstrative marginal talent to sit in a premier seat in American Motor Sports. I don't begrudge her for doing so, but based on your mention of Sadler and the likes you seem to understand the difference between marketability and driving talent.
What's comical is that Danica can go TEN YEARS in her career with no measurable success and you're actually still saying the stats back you up. But they don't. There are no stats in Danica's career that suggest she is where she is based on talent.
Where is the speculation that she went ten years without winning anything? That's not speculation. As much as you wish it were.
You complain that Scott Speed won nothing but KARTs (which is simply not true) and that this is his pass to stink up the big leagues year after year. Speed, won in Formula Mazda and Renault. His YEARS of stinking up the big leagues is less than 2 seasons in F1 and less than one in Cup. Really? That's YEARS of not performing? But Danica going ten years is just development somehow?
REALLY!??!
And it would drive AGR out of business? Didn't we already cover the key here was MARKETABILITY.
You can keep taking in circles and keep ignoring her career stats all you want. She's never performed up to the equipment she was given. The stats back that up, plain as day.
Maybe she'll have a break through someday. Maybe it will come in IndyCar (seems less likely now), maybe not. Hell, even Michael Waltrip became a Daytona 500 winner and would have been a "Chase" class driver in the mid-90s...
Oh, I don't know. One of the hottest (no pun intended) marketing names in motorsports this decade or Matt... Kenseth...Crofton?...Crafton? Wait, who???????
better prepared.......enough said. i'm thinkin' she may be signed for too many of the wrong reasons instead of the right reasons, which may not be the best thing.........even for her!!