NASCAR's rain tire procedure needs clarity following New Hampshire

A few days removed from the wet-weather tires running at New Hampshire and my biggest thought is: Where does NASCAR go from here?

While the narrative around the tires was that they would be used to dry the track to resume (or get started) earlier for the benefit of fans in the stands and watching at home, it is apparent that if NASCAR is willing to run them for 86 laps as it did Sunday, that the tires could be used for an entire race.

That would mean, as Kevin Harvick said on the "Kevin Harvick's Happy Hour" podcast, that they would need to bring more of the tires to get through an entire race.

The next issue: Whether NASCAR should operate ovals as they do road courses and should let teams decide when to put on the slicks. It sounds like NASCAR wants to get to that point, but with this program in its infancy, NASCAR will take a pragmatic approach before making a decision on when to implement that policy. The sooner, the better.

And then the other issue is pit stops. Should NASCAR dry pit road for competitive pit stops? Yes, they do pit stops on road courses in wet conditions, but with different strategies and the cars spread out on road courses, it typically isn't a full field on pit road all at once.

On the ovals, NASCAR should take the time and dry pit road for competitive pit stops if at all possible.  Pit stops are part of the race.

And finally: NASCAR should make its intentions clear. The seemingly decisions-as-they-go Sunday was frustrating to watch and hard to follow. When the teams are lobbying NASCAR over their in-car radios, there's a problem. NASCAR had two hours Sunday to let teams and fans know how they would handle the situation.

Is racing in the damp a good thing? Is it better to have a race in mist on rain tires — where drivers have little experience and go slower — than to have a race on slicks where they potentially could be at their best? Would it be as acceptable in a playoff race with potentially more on the line?

The argument to race would be that at least fans would get to see a race. And other sports play in the rain and that's just the way it goes.

The argument against it is these drivers have little experience doing it, and when the series goes to a venue once or twice a year, do the fans really get their money's worth (as opposed to maybe a season-ticket holder for a football team that sees several games)? And keeping fans at the facility amid lightning and other severe weather always comes with an element of risk.

Please don't start that racing on the rain tires Sunday was more exciting than on the slicks—– it mostly was but that shouldn't be the case, and hopefully NASCAR gets its short-track package to a point where it isn't.

NASCAR seems committed to the rain tires on the short tracks. How it takes what it learned at New Hampshire will be pivotal to how successful the program is in the future.

Bob Pockrass covers NASCAR for FOX Sports. He has spent decades covering motorsports, including over 30 Daytona 500s, with stints at ESPN, Sporting News, NASCAR Scene magazine and The (Daytona Beach) News-Journal. Follow him on Twitter @ bobpockrass .