After reading Mauzy's article I get the idea that he is not in favor of Formula One coming to Austin. Though he does not come right out and tell the reader his oppinion the facts he brought up are not in favor of Formula One. Mauzy plants a question in your mind by mentioning Watkins Glen along with the other well known cities I'm guessing to let the reader know that Formula One will not help put Austin on the map because Watkins Glen also hosted Formula One and most havn't heard of it. He also makes a point to mention that of all of these cities who "have" hosted none of them are or will host, I'm guessing he means ever again? Mauzy doesn't give any examples of the outcome in other cities which makes me wonder if the cities aren't hosting again because of a negative outcome. He also metions the enormous cost involved and warns readers of the possibility that the loans granted by government may not be repayed because of lack of profit. Being that Mauzy is a financial analyst he probably has a more acurate prediction of whether or not a business will succeed or fail than most, but can anyone really say for sure if a business will prosper or fail? Mauzy mentions that he believes ticket prices are too high and that even if people go to see the races once they surely won't fork out the cash a second time, especially if bad traffic or inadequate facilities come into play. A lot of Mauzy's opinions supporting his beliefs are just that, opinions. Without sturdy facts to prove that Formula One will fail his article lacks the proof needed for a convincing argument so I believe this article deserves a D.

I mean come on lets face it Austinites already have their sport thats football, Longhorns to be exact, and Formula One won't be taking focus from that anytime soon. So I do agree with Mauzy's prediction of failure for the Formula One track but I do not believe he did an adequate job of proving his point. This article sounds like an opinion coming from a financial analyst not a valid argument of why Formula One should not be allowed to come to Austin. I need to know more. The article says Government is investing $250 million and has economic studies estimating the 2012 race will bring in $26.6 million to the state and $4.6 million to Austin. If Mauzy's prediction is correct that Texas' investment won't be profitable then he needs to build a better case proving it so that Texas won't invest the money to build Formula One. If Texas economic studies are incorrect there needs to be proof supporting the negative outcome of bringing Formula One to Austin so that we can save ourelves the trouble of becoming yet another one of those cities that "have" hosted Formula One.