For much of its 50-plus years in business, NASCAR has been known as an ultra-conservative organization. The founding France family simply does not like to upset the apple cart.

And yet, despite that philosophy, the sanctioning body has enjoyed explosive growth, particularly in the last 10 years, in attendance, fans, media attention, races, sponsors, television contracts and the like.

Today, NASCAR is without question the most successful form of motorsports in the United States.

Much of that success has been steeped in loyalty to tracks and track owners, often over several decades. That's why the circuit continues to make two trips each season to most of the tracks on the schedule -- including Martinsville, Va., Richmond, Va., Dover, Del., Darlington, S.C., and Rockingham, N.C. -- rewarding track owners for their long-term allegiance to the sport.

Of the 36 races on this season's schedule, 26 are at tracks that get two events each year.

I have no problem with loyalty. That's why I can understand why NASCAR keeps coming back to so many tracks time and time again.

But what I can't understand is how the France family, NASCAR President Mike Helton and all of the supposedly business-savvy officials at NASCAR can continue to ignore the untapped potential that keeps staring them in the face.

I was reminded of this again Monday when NASCAR announced its 2003 schedule. With the exception of a couple of dates that have been moved around, next season will still have the same number of races at the same number of tracks. There will be no additional dates or venues on the dance card next season.

And once again, people who run tracks clamoring for their first-ever Winston Cup race, or those who currently host just one event yet could easily accommodate a second race, are stiffed.

There are new tracks in Kentucky and Nashville, Tenn., that desperately want to be on the Winston Cup schedule. There are also a number of plans for more new tracks trying to woo NASCAR. Yet at the same time, some of those facilities won't be built until NASCAR says it's coming.

It's a simple premise: Bring the race, and the track will get built. No race, no track.

Then there's existing tracks like Texas Motor Speedway, Chicagoland Speedway and Kansas Speedway which have proven they can -- and probably should -- host a second event each year. Those tracks can offer more attendance, concession revenue and sponsorship potential.

The bigger and newer tracks can bring so much more to the circuit, yet NASCAR continues to snub them in the same fashion they continue to overlook many of the new tracks who have yet to host their first Cup event.

Do we really need two races at Martinsville or Richmond or Dover? Is there any legitimate reason to continue to ignore a place like Texas, which could easily put 200,000 fans in the stands, just to allow Martinsville to draw somewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 fans for a second race?

In fact, Texas would never have been on the schedule in the first place if its owner, Bruton Smith, had not bought North Wilkesboro (N.C.) Speedway, which itself had hosted two races each season from 1961 through 1996. Smith then shifted one of those dates to Texas. In fact, Smith continues to vow that NASCAR promised to grant a second date at Texas.

But, instead, North Wilkesboro's second date was awarded to New Hampshire International Speedway in Loudon. Given the animosity that has grown between Smith and NASCAR, it's likely he and his Texas track will be waiting a lot longer, too.

Sure, there's a lot of charm in old tracks such as Darlington, Richmond, Martinsville and the like. But isn't one race each season enough? The time of year may change for each return trip, but it's still the same place and same charm.

I've heard top NASCAR officials preach for years about how the circuit "goes where the fans are." And, for the most part, that is true. That's why we've seen new races and/or tracks join the circuit in the last decade at Texas, Chicago, Kansas, South Florida, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, New England and Southern California.

Of that group, only Loudon, N.H., has two races each season. The other venues host just one event each year.

The other track that hosts just one race per season is Phoenix International Raceway, which first appeared on the Winston Cup schedule in 1988.

The one thing neither I nor most drivers, team members or owners want to see is for the schedule to be increased beyond its current 36 races.

But at the same time, I think there should be a more equitable distribution of races. Not only would the new tracks flourish, it would mean a tremendous shot in the arm financially to the business community in those locales, as well. It would be a win-win situation for NASCAR, the new tracks and surrounding communities.

Such a move is a no-brainer. It would make great business sense -- and isn't that what NASCAR is all about?

Loyalty to existing tracks is one thing, but when NASCAR overlooks the potential of bigger, newer tracks it's ignoring its fans, television audiences and those new markets which would offer more than many of the current two-stop tracks.

Jerry Bonkowski covers NASCAR for ESPN.com.