Search results

Different people have different priorities. Pearson was more interested in trophy hunting than running for a championship. Richard Petty and others valued the championship.

Pearson didn’t run a full season after 1969 and won the championship in three out of the four seasons where he actually competed for one. If Pearson had tried, Petty wouldn’t have 7 championships and if he had run more races, he wouldn’t have 200 wins.

I’ve been a fan of this sport long enough to expect pushback no matter what.

You don’t get to dismiss counter arguments by labeling them as “gotcha,” especially when the core argument is legitimacy. It’s fine if you don’t have an answer but you can’t hand wave it away. Even bad systems are legitimate. The teams all operate under the same rules and with the same set of...

You’re conflating two different arguments. My position is that the system sucks but it is a legitimate means of crowning a champion.

Back in the old days, if you weren’t cheating, you weren’t trying.

That’s what you’re missing and what me and others are trying to explain to you. A lottery is truly random. The playoff system has a consistent set of rules that everyone has to follow. It is not random in any actual sense.

Honest question for you: What do you make of the legitimacy of Richard Petty’s first four championships? A lot of the people you’re citing are criticizing the playoffs without attacking the legitimacy of the championships.

We have 41 pages of people (mostly you) acting like their opinion should govern the legitimacy of a championship format. You can be anti-playoffs while still being an adult and acknowledging that they are a legitimate but flawed way of determine a champion.

No championship is tainted. If you think so, you need to read up on your NASCAR history.

How do you feel about some of the convoluted messes that predated the Latford system? A championship is a championship. Nothing is tainted.

I don’t know man, we could just call it the Ricky Bobby Cup.

This is absolutely, unequivocally untrue.

In what way was SRX a competitor to NASCAR? It was spec car series that was essentially for retired drivers, Hailie Deegan, and the occasional NASCAR driver. In no way were they a competitor and at no point did they even try to be.

Yup And the first bullet point under Section 2 is at issue.

This is not what the Sherman Antitrust Act requires at all.

Go back and read carefully. NASCAR has no competitor in their space. CARS is owned by a bunch of guys who work in the NASCAR ecosystem so they definitely aren’t trying to compete. Sprint car racing is a COMPLETELY different discipline than what NASCAR does. It’s like comparing football to...

NASCAR directly owns a good portion of the venues. The CARS tour has never tried to compete with NASCAR (and good reason), I can’t imagine NASCAR would be very friendly with them if they did. The singular existence of a “competitor” doesn’t negate a monopoly. You used to be able to take old...

The NFL is more of a competition to NASCAR than “High Limit Racing.” You can worship dirt racing all you want but they’re not competing with NASCAR. Unless it’s a stock car racing series, it’s not a competitor to NASCAR. The CARS Tour is the best argument against a monopoly.

Trying to use participation in SRX, a spec car series that was basically a part time gig for retired drivers and Hailie Deegan, as proof that NASCAR isn’t a monopoly is laughable. You can be a monopoly while still tolerating entities that aren’t a threat to you. NASCAR’s market is stock car...