INDIANAPOLIS — Mark Miles would like to make something clear: Nothing about Indianapolis 500 qualifying is changing between now and May 18 and 19. IndyCar and Indianapolis Motor Speedway announced the new two-day format in February, and those are the rules the series will adhere to for the 103rd running of the Indianapolis 500.

Case closed.

However, that does not mean the CEO of Hulman and Co. — which owns IndyCar and IMS — is closed off to the idea of making changes to qualifying for 2020 and beyond. Like nearly every aspect of NTT IndyCar Series racing, if there's a reasonable avenue to improving the product the series has to offer, Miles will have the discussion.

That includes discussions about the controversial issue of locking in full-time entries, which has become a popular topic lately after three of IndyCar's most powerful team owners — Roger Penske, Chip Ganassi and Michael Andretti — all advocated for it publicly.

In light of their concerns, IndyStar reached out to Miles to ask how he feels about guaranteed spots for full-season entries. This is what he said:

Question: Given what we've heard from owners lately, where do you stand and where does IndyCar stand on guaranteed entries for the 500?

Answer: Look, If I’m a car owner, a full-time car owner, I make a significant investment in racing in the IndyCar Series, and the most important event of the year is the Indianapolis 500. So I'd want to know I’m going to be able to race in it — just like I know I’m going to be able to race at Long Beach or any other IndyCar event if I should turn up, if I’m a Leaders Circle team. I understand that. It’s not illogical. My job is to think about it from every perspective, which includes the IndyCar paddock, but it also includes Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

More on guaranteed entries at the Indianapolis 500:

One of the reasons this event is what it is, is because it has a brand. It has traditions. It has a tradition that means something to fans. And we believe a big part of qualifying is the drama around the possibility that a car isn’t going to get in. Whatever car. We try to consider all the points of view and decide what we ought to do.

As far as locked-in entries, there isn't an argument we haven’t heard. We understand it all. We just made an adjustment to the rules that is in part motivated by this consideration of how impactful it is on all teams if they don’t qualify for the race. So weather permitting, they’ll have more than one shot. And that’s what we’re doing this year.

Q: If you did have locked-in entries, do you think that would scare away potential one-off entries and part-time teams?

A: I don’t know. We’d have to talk more about that. They’re probably the most likely to get bumped now. So I don’t know if that really makes it worse — if 22 or 23 were straight in and the competition is from the next 10. We’d really have to think about that. I don’t know analytically if that’s true. I suppose it is a little bit. But I don’t know what they will think about their prospects for raising money to get in. That’s a conversation we have to have in more depth. I know it matters. Pippa (Mann) has argued for a greater opportunity to get in, because for her, it’s harder, in her mind, than it is for a Leaders Circle team that has everything together.

I will point out that however dramatic or impactful it is for a Leaders Circle team to not get in, it might be even more so for a team that’s just trying to put together an entrant for the 500. Because they’ve worked all year to try and get a ride together. They’ve bought equipment, leased the engine, made their deal with Firestone, pulled the personnel together. Their first day is qualifying. If they don’t get it, they’re done. Yes, they have less investment, so it’s not the same, but when we’re thinking about all of this, one would also consider the perspective and interests of part-time teams.

And by the way, we don’t have 33 full-time cars. So we can’t be oblivious to others who are coming in and filling up the field and getting us to 33-34-35-36 or whatever. They’re part of our history, that approach is part of our history.

Q: Earlier today Michael Andretti said that in 2011, when Ryan Hunter-Reay got bumped, he had to broker a deal with A.J. Foyt to get Hunter-Reay back in the race, otherwise sponsor DHL would have left the sport. What’s your reaction to that?

A: I understand his point of view. That is not what happened with Arrow (Arrow didn't desert Schmidt Peterson Motorsports after James Hinchcliffe failed to qualify last year). It’s our job to understand all of the dynamics. We’re not unsympathetic to it, but at the end of the day we have to decide what we have to do at the speedway.

Q: Does IndyCar and IMS see Arrow as a test case? As in, OK, that’s how a major sponsor responds to getting bumped?

A: No it’s not a test case, and there’s no rule. These things are different in every circumstance. When Roger (Penske) missed, it didn’t run him out of the IndyCar business. It didn’t for Arrow. But it might have. And if Michael said that if he hadn’t bought an entrant, he would have lost DHL, that would be horrible. DHL is a great sponsor, and they continue to be. But no, I don’t think there’s a test case. Just because it happened here doesn’t mean it will happen everywhere. One way or the other.

Q: Michael suggested today that IndyCar President Jay Frye is in favor of guaranteed entries for full-time cars. He said you’re the one who needs to be convinced. Do you feel like you’re fighting this battle alone?

A: Absolutely not. I talk to Jay about it often, including (Wednesday). I think we’re very much aligned.

Q: Given owners’ concerns about losing sponsors and sponsors not getting the exposure they’re paying for, has there been discussion about opening up the field beyond 33?

A. No. But that said, we’ll never be completely close-minded about anything that’s not about integrity and ethics. But to this point, we believe having 33 cars is part of what we are. Those 11 rows of 3 aren’t acts of God. There could have been years where we had fewer. And there have been years where we’ve had more. So it’s not immutable, but our inclination is to have bumping and it’s a good thing to have 33 cars start the race.

Q: Why is it so important for IMS and IndyCar to keep those traditions, bumping and 33 cars, in terms of the value they bring?

A: Generally, I think brands stand for something in the minds of consumers. That’s different for everything. But sports are brands, and events within sports are brands. I think when people think about the Indianapolis 500-mile race for all of these years, part of May, part of the race has been the drama around who gets in — through the qualifying process. I think that’s part of what they identify us as. And that adds value for our weekends — to the time trial weekend. It adds drama, and I think fans really like it and have all these years.

Q: So the 500 loses value without those traditions? Or more to the point, locked-in entries would sap value from the 500?

A: There are a number of considerations, not just one. So not locking in entries runs the risk of having an adverse effect on Leaders Circle entries. But giving an incumbent right to Leaders Circle teams might have an inhibiting effect on growing the number of entrants that are trying to get in the race. I didn’t say it did. I said it might.

But I think fans of the 500, and I think broadcasters, reflecting the fans’ interests, think that drama in the weekend creates a value, creates more interest. And that’s important.

Q: Regarding locked-in entries, a lot of fans bring up the “25-8” rule from 1996 and how much damage that caused (That rule called for 25 of the 33 positions to be set aside for IRL regulars, with the remaining eight spots open to other entries.) Does that negative history have an effect on how you feel?

A: It certainly doesn’t in our decision-making. Whether or not there are long-time fans for whom it’s some kind of lightning rod issue, maybe that has a relevant effect for them. But it certainly has no impact on our thinking.

Follow IndyStar Motor Sports Insider Jim Ayello on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram: @jimayello.