We've received plenty of comments from you over the last couple days, so it's time to clear out the "SportsBiz" e-mail inbox and give you a taste of what others out there have to say.
Many of you reacted to my having a problem with NASCAR cutting off the Daytona 500because of rain on Sunday. With more than 950 votes into our poll, 64 percent of you agreed that NASCAR should have continued the race on Monday. Here are some other thoughts on the topic.
Jack Williams writes,"I am a hardcore race fan. Literally every other type of major league auto racing RACES in the rain. That’s why they make rain race tires. It’s ridiculous. I can’t wait for the Indy Cars & F1."
Don Allen writes,"If the Indianapolis 500 can reschedule due to a rain delay, so can Daytona. The attendance demographics are not tremendously different, and Indy has historically had attendees from coast to coast, and internationally. Certainly, the rescheduled event will be down in attendance, but it's the reality due to those who have jobs, and other plans on their schedules."
Dale Lewis writes,"I remember about 10 to 15 years ago the Daytona 500 started about two hours earlier to avoid afternoon rain and before it got dark. They did not have this come up as much as it has since Fox took over the telecast. They want this to end in primetime, so I blame Fox."
Robert Hanna writes,"I would be disappointed if a World Series game ended due to rain, or if there were a "caution" for a blown out shoe, mit, or broken bat; but then the baseball players wouldn't like this either I suspect. However, I would also be disappointed if a NASCAR event went into "overtime" or "an extra inning" if there were a tie, or if there were a "last quarter time-out" to set up for a drag race to the finish. Please keep in mind, bad weather does have a slightly different affect on a sport where drivers travel close to speeds of 200 mph and where, most importantly, staying alive can become a challenge; obviously there's not quite this dilemma in most other outdoor contact sports."
We also had many write-ins when we asked if Bud Selig and Roger Goodell are overpaid. With more than 1,400 votes in, 49 percent of you thought that both of them were.
Isaac Bearg writes,"I don't think its the dollar amount per say that make a lot of people all that upset as the idea that they're getting paid all that money for a role people don't really know too much about. The players play, the owners put out the product on the field, it's simple and fans understand that. Commissioners? Well, its a little less clear. So the natural reaction is: Selig is getting all that money? For what?"
John Fullmer writes, "I would suggest that what has caused the salary increases of executives on Wall Street and commissioners are the high salaries of athletes. It is easy for a wall street executive to justify in his mind that he is worth as much or more than a top athlete. He is at the top of his game so why shouldn't they pull in these crazy salaries? The crazy salaries on Wall Street came after athletes got these crazy high salaries. I don't agree with any of these salaries. These high priced athletes started this train wreck, unintentionally of course."
Stan Orlow writes,"If the NFL wants to put on a good face, tell me why the price of my Eagles season ticket is going up in the worst of economic times in 75 years? When it comes to putting on a good face to the fans, the ownershipsof the major sports clubs and the commissioners (especially Bud Selig) will never get an "atta- boy" from me."
Questions? Comments? SportsBiz@cnbc.com