Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a traditionalist and would have preferred they not mess with the format or introduce the chase.
That said, I can enjoy the chase too and do not hate it. It is here and probably here to stay.
What bothers me is the constant tinkering with it! They seem to think by making constant tweeks they will make it "better" but they are just making it different.
They need to settle on it, and leave it for a number of years. Let it be consistent. Then, if some warts show, make tweeks.
i wonder what the fans thought when the original points system was changed in 1972(?). remember that the original championships were determined by how much money the driver won during the season. that included lap money, appearance money, winnings, etc. it was not unusual to see drivers run 43 races in a season to garner as much money as possible.
and dont forget that the chase format was instituted because matt kenseth won the championship after only winning one race the whole season, EVEN THOUGH other drivers accomplished the same feat, that of winning only one race, but winning the points race for the championship.
at least with the chase more drivers are in the running late in the season, and that makes the championship run more interesting.
i wonder what the fans thought when the original points system was changed in 1972(?). remember that the original championships were determined by how much money the driver won during the season. that included lap money, appearance money, winnings, etc. it was not unusual to see drivers run 43 races in a season to garner as much money as possible.
and dont forget that the chase format was instituted because matt kenseth won the championship after only winning one race the whole season, EVEN THOUGH other drivers accomplished the same feat, that of winning only one race, but winning the points race for the championship.
at least with the chase more drivers are in the running late in the season, and that makes the championship run more interesting.
That's not totally accurate; it wasn't based solely on money:
First, the NASCAR point system used for championship from 1949 till 1951 awarded points on basis 10 points for the 1st place, 9 pts for 2nd, 8 pts for 3rd and so on, multiplied by 0.005*race purse (Race worth $4000 paid 200 points to the winner, 180 for 2nd place...). No info about how many points were given to drivers finishing below 10th place.
From 1952 till 1967, the NASCAR point system was based on linear scale for first 25 positions: 25-24-23-... Coefficients changed, but were always dependent on prize money. Drivers finishing 25th or lower were awarded the same number of points.
In 1968, NASCAR started to award points depending on race distance, not prize money. Point system was 50-49-48-... multiplied by 1 for events to 249 miles, 2 for events 250–399 miles and 3 for events 400 miles and more. System stopped from 50th place. This system was in use until the end of 1971 season.
Also:
Like Johnson today, Kenseth and others along his style (Terry Labonte for example), took advantage of the sytem in place from 1972 until 2003. It rewarded consistency. And if you think about racing as a team sport that system makes the most sense in my opinion. So you win 4,5,6 races or more, but can't bring the car home in one piece or parts fail then you were penalized for it. I'd rather have win or two and a bunch of top 5's and 10's than 5 wins and just as many DNF's.
When you look at the 2004 chase, Kurt Busch won the championship with 3 wins and 10 top 5's. 3 Drivers had more wins (3), 5 had more top 5's (10), and 4 had as many or more top 10's. His championship was a product of the chase and performing well in the last 10 races....his SEASON LONG performance was not on par with previous champions and, in my opinion, his championship is pretty hollow.
But, I've already voiced my opinion about the chase...no need to belabor that.
Prior to the Winston Cup, the money for purses was very uneven. The season was typically 50 races, with a handful of high profile big money races and a whole bunch of little tiny races. The big races would attract a ton of racers, including a bunch of good part timers and open wheel drivers. I remember looking at the stats and noticing only 4 to 6 racers raced the entire year in all of the races for most years. These were the only real contenders for a NASCAR championship because most of the drivers in NASCAR were part timers.
All this changed when Winston dropped hundreds of millions of dollars into NASCAR because of the cigarette TV commercial ban and paid huge bonuses based on year end standings. By reducing the number of races into the 30's and putting in huge purses, NASCAR got way more full time drivers and teams. It made the championship way more competitive because instead of 4 to 6 full time teams you were now competing with 25 to 40 full time teams. It also made the championship more important than just being the winner of the Daytona 500, the World 600, or the Southern 500. Being the Nascar champ wasn't as big of a deal back then (kind of like how the Indy 500 champ is way more well known than the IRL champ in a given year).
So Dale Earnhardt's 7 Winston Cup championships is way more impressive than Richard Petty's 7 championships. The change in the point system really wasn't that important compared to how Winston altered the economics of the sport and made it more professional in the early 1970's.
Like Johnson today, Kenseth and others along his style (Terry Labonte for example), took advantage of the sytem in place from 1972 until 2003. It rewarded consistency. And if you think about racing as a team sport that system makes the most sense in my opinion. So you win 4,5,6 races or more, but can't bring the car home in one piece or parts fail then you were penalized for it. I'd rather have win or two and a bunch of top 5's and 10's than 5 wins and just as many DNF's.
When you look at the 2004 chase, Kurt Busch won the championship with 3 wins and 10 top 5's. 3 Drivers had more wins (3), 5 had more top 5's (10), and 4 had as many or more top 10's. His championship was a product of the chase and performing well in the last 10 races....his SEASON LONG performance was not on par with previous champions and, in my opinion, his championship is pretty hollow.
I agree with Busch, but ironically I'm pretty sure every other Chase champ would have finished either 1st or 2nd in the old sytem. So NASCAR has lucked out that later Chase champs ended up with more credibility. If the 12th place qualifer won a bunch of titles, I bet the Chase would probably be scrapped by now.
Also, I don't think the fact Kenseth won 1 race really caused the Chase. Ryan Newman won 8 races that year and his owner Roger Penske was the biggest complainer about Kenseth being the champ with just 1 win. In the IRL or F1 points system, Newman would have been champ instead of 8th or so. So if that was the issue, the easy solution would be to bump up the points for wins to say 200 or 225.
I think NASCAR's real concern is the Kenseth dominated the points lead that year and had it sown up pretty early, causing less interest in the last few races or little buzz for the championship. NASCAR just signed a huge new sponsor in Nextel and thought by adding a playoff like ending, it would keep interest in the last few races, draw huge ratings, and differentiate itself from the Winston brand (remember they dramatically change how the sport was run for Winston back in the 1970's as well, so there was precedent). Maybe they thought lightning would strike twice.
It just hasn't turned out that way. I don't like the Chase either. I think it just adds too much randomness to who the champ is. I also wish they had a greater variety of track styles, but it is hard to do because of the weather.
Prior to the Winston Cup, the money for purses was very uneven. The season was typically 50 races, with a handful of high profile big money races and a whole bunch of little tiny races. The big races would attract a ton of racers, including a bunch of good part timers and open wheel drivers. I remember looking at the stats and noticing only 4 to 6 racers raced the entire year in all of the races for most years. These were the only real contenders for a NASCAR championship because most of the drivers in NASCAR were part timers.
All this changed when Winston dropped hundreds of millions of dollars into NASCAR because of the cigarette TV commercial ban and paid huge bonuses based on year end standings. By reducing the number of races into the 30's and putting in huge purses, NASCAR got way more full time drivers and teams. It made the championship way more competitive because instead of 4 to 6 full time teams you were now competing with 25 to 40 full time teams. It also made the championship more important than just being the winner of the Daytona 500, the World 600, or the Southern 500. Being the Nascar champ wasn't as big of a deal back then (kind of like how the Indy 500 champ is way more well known than the IRL champ in a given year).
So Dale Earnhardt's 7 Winston Cup championships is way more impressive than Richard Petty's 7 championships. The change in the point system really wasn't that important compared to how Winston altered the economics of the sport and made it more professional in the early 1970's.
...and after seeing that somehow Junior made it in with what seems to be the worst record in the Chase contenders (behind Keselowski and Hamlin, somehow), I can see why. What if a driver needed to have at least one win during the Race to the Chase in order to make the Chase? Would that not make the racing more competitive overall? We know that some drivers just cruise along until the Chase, but this would make them race hard to score at least one win. Only those with a win get in, even if that means less than 12 in the Chase.
Thoughts?
You don't think they are all running as hard as they can for a win every time they race? I don't think anyone is cruising along trying to slide their way into the chase.
I don't have a problem with someone making it in the chase on no wins, it's consistency that should count.
The points system makes more sense now than it did in the past.
You don't think they are all running as hard as they can for a win every time they race? I don't think anyone is cruising along trying to slide their way into the chase.
I don't have a problem with someone making it in the chase on no wins, it's consistency that should count.
The points system makes more sense now than it did in the past.
No, I don't think they all run as hard as possible. It's strategy. I saw it in the last Indy Car race, from Kentucky. Franchitti was racing for the win but backed off because he's in contention for the championship. He all but admitted it in the post race interview.
The drivers keep their eye on the bigger prize, which is the championship. I get that. If I'm joeblow driver, and I can see that a few top 5's get me into the Chase, am I really going to risk not getting into the Chase? Some will, some won't, sometimes.
I just think forcing the action away from just being consistent would make the racing more exciting. At the end of the day, fans don't say "Wow! Did you see how consistent insert driver here was today?" We want wins, and the action that goes along with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
