All Purpose NASCAR Thread

Bubbler, don't say that so begrudgingly. ;D

 

There was nothing wrong with the old system. If anything, it ruins the sport for me, to some degree. I liked the idea that a race is a race is a race. If you're going to have a Chase, then have it with only those 10 cars and leave the rest at home. What if the guy who barely missed the Chase at No. 11 won seven races down the stretch? Too bad, too late. I hope someone does do that, to prove a point.

 

Oz, if the guy is in 11th in points wins 7 races in the final 10 under the old system, he probably still doesn't win the title. He'd be so far back in points, it wouldn't matter.

Legitimately, under the old system? Probably 3-4 guys right now would have a shot at the title. With the Chase? 10.

 

True, IJAG, but it should probably be only those three or four with a shot at the title.

Like I said before, it's NASCAR's way of fixing something that wasn't broken. (And for those of you claiming that the drivers have said they support it, don't you think Mike Helton and the France family would crush any non-iconic driver for saying anything other than "the right thing" about its fabulous, infallible system? This is NASCAR ... )

Bubbler, your point is valid. Matt Kenseth isn't exactly a larger-than-life personality. But kudos to him for being what he is, whatever that is.

 

I won't argue that. I'm just stating the reality of the 11th-place driver winning the title in the final 10 races is slimmer than slim.

 

Alan Kulwicki was about 300 points out with seven races to go in '92. He probably wouldn't have made the Chase had it been in place then, and it would've likely eliminated one of the greatest championship finishes NASCAR has seen.

 

Still probably one of the best stories NASCAR's top level ever had. Which made the plane crash that killed him and some of his friends and colleagues all the more sad.

 

As great as Kulwicki's story was, the final '92 race was just as good.

Five guys with mathematical possibilities of winning the championship, and it came down to a pit call (keeping the 'Underbird' out longer to lead the most laps).

Remember watching the race then the Petty special afterward as it happened. Still love seeing it when it comes on ESPN Classic, even though it's now grainy as anything.

 

Perhaps the greatest race in NASCAR history, and not just for the championship battle. Richard Petty's last Cup race and Jeff Gordon's first. Talk about a passing of the torch, although no one could possibly have recognized it at the time.

True, but winning seven of the last 10 races could boost a guy a lot higher in the standings than 11th. Care to guess the monetary difference between finishing 11th and finishing, say, fifth?

They could have just tweaked the old system. Award more points for a win, to reward domination. Increase the point difference between the top finishing positions -- 200 for first place, 180 for second, 165 for third, 155 for fourth, 150 for fifth, and go down by increments of five for the rest of the top 10. Then go down by increments of 10 until you get to 20th place, which is good for 25 points. If you don't make the top 20, you don't get anything. Thirty-four points for starting and finishing last? Why reward failure? Hey, Mikey, try again next weekend.

You could also award points for winning the pole, for leading at the halfway mark of a race, for winning the most races during the season or for winning the marquee events. Set up a true Grand Slam that means something -- the Daytona 500, the Coca-Cola 600, the Brickyard 400 and either the Southern 500 or one of the Talladega races. Winning a Grand Slam race is worth an extra 50 points in the standings on top of the 200 you get just for winning. Win two in one season, you get the extra 50 plus 50 more. Win three, the extra 50 plus 100. Win all four, the extra 50 plus 500 points. Since winning all four in one year has never been done, I think the hefty bonus would be justified.

 

Southern 500, of course, now is gone.

Another France family fuckup. It'd be like tearing down Yankee Stadium.

Oops, they're gonna do that.

 

Of course, if the guy who's 11th would "be so far back in points, it wouldn't matter" in the old system, then why bother to take the guy who's barely in front of him under the new system? Which only proves my point that there was nothing wrong with the old system.

The only reason to have a Chase is to drum up interest in these mid- to late-summer races and have shows like "Cold Pizza" speculate who might miss the cut. It's worthless, really.

 

NASCAR's intent is understandable - and I'm the last person to want to give any point to them - but the only thing the Chase did is boost ticket sales for the 26th race and 10 Chase races. I haven't seen any discernable data that shows the Chase is really boosting ratings that much. In addition, some say it's like the postseason in baseball and football, well, the teams that don't make it, don't have a stake in the final 10 games. Sponsors and owners are paying good money to put cars on the track and they're treated like also-rans - even when they are running good.
This sport is quickly becoming like pro wrestling in that its all set to what TV wants. That takes the fun out of racing. It's not about the people anymore