Determining a Champion

Honestly while I can understand saying Harvick was the best driver this season, I would argue he was more of a "regular season" driver, similar to Peyton Manning in football.
Someone known as the "closer" shouldn't be called the best after performing so badly in his most important race of the year (Martinsville).
 
BobbyFord said:
I would say that the driver with the best average finish and the most wins on the season is the champion.
YMMV.
Click to expand...
Those were never the criteria, even when determining a champion =was= what it used to be.

And there are plenty of cases where those criteria weren't met by one driver. See '03, to pick just one example, when Kenseth had the best average and Newman had the most wins. I guess neither was 'best' , so no champion should have been crowned.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Those were never the criteria, even when determining a champion =was= what it used to be.

And there are plenty of cases where those criteria weren't met by one driver. See '03, to pick just one example, when Kenseth had the best average and Newman had the most wins. I guess neither was 'best' , so no champion should have been crowned.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I’m just arguing what should be the criteria.
 
BobbyFord said:
I don’t disagree. I’m just arguing what should be the criteria.
Click to expand...
You opened with the criteria not being what it used to be. Then you trot out criteria that was never used. It may not be what it used to be, but what it replaced didn't meet your definition either. There's no reason to single out Elliott over the 'champions' that preceded him, since none of them were were crowned because they had the best average and most wins. By those standards, I assume you feel all others are equally illegitimate.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
You opened with the criteria not being what it used to be. Then you trot out criteria that was never used. It may not be what it used to be, but what it replaced didn't meet your definition either. There's no reason to single out Elliott over the 'champions' that preceded him, since none of them were were crowned because they had the best average and most wins. By those standards, I assume you feel all others are equally illegitimate.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of word salad I don’t care to wade through.
I’m stating that it is my opinion that a season champion should be determined by the driver that had the best performance throughout the racing season; best average finish and most wins, IMO, determines the best driver/team for the season.
 
BobbyFord said:
I would say that the driver with the best average finish and the most wins on the season is the champion.
YMMV.
Click to expand...

OK, 1996. Who should have been the champion? Gordon had ten wins to Labonte's two, but Terry edged Jeff in average finish.
 
BobbyFord said:
I don’t disagree. I’m just arguing what should be the criteria.
Click to expand...
The system was who had the most points for the entire year and I think that is still the besy way. A lot of these drivers today go all out so they win or crash out. I like a driver who raced smart and got the best his car would give him and that is how Kenseth won a championship.
 
Team Penske said:
The system was who had the most points for the entire year and I think that is still the besy way. A lot of these drivers today go all out so they win or crash out. I like a driver who raced smart and got the best his car would give him and that is how Kenseth won a championship.
Click to expand...
I don’t expect we’ll all ever agree on the best format for determining a champion.
I’ve been a fan since the 60s and this is the least involved I’ve been in that time period. I don’t care about championships. I don’t watch whatever they call the last ten races now. It’s no longer a viable sport, to me. I’m not interested in reality TV.
 
BobbyFord said:
I dunno. Ffs, this isn’t 1996. I don’t give a crap about 1996.
Click to expand...

So you have all of the answers on how to determine a champion, and yet you won't (or can't) tell me who the champion of a previous season should have been based on your own criteria. Got it. This reminds me why I don't come around here as often anymore.......
 
Formerjackman said:
So you have all of the answers on how to determine a champion, and yet you won't (or can't) tell me who the champion of a previous season should have been based on your own criteria. Got it. This reminds me why I don't come around here as often anymore.......
Click to expand...
Are you in another dust-up?

This is a recurring theme.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
You opened with the criteria not being what it used to be. Then you trot out criteria that was never used. It may not be what it used to be, but what it replaced didn't meet your definition either. There's no reason to single out Elliott over the 'champions' that preceded him, since none of them were were crowned because they had the best average and most wins. By those standards, I assume you feel all others are equally illegitimate.
Click to expand...
You asked him how he defined the “best” way to determine a champion.

He gave his definition.

Now you’re telling him he’s wrong?

tenor.gif
 
Formerjackman said:
So you have all of the answers on how to determine a champion, and yet you won't (or can't) tell me who the champion of a previous season should have been based on your own criteria. Got it. This reminds me why I don't come around here as often anymore.......
Click to expand...
Keep wondering what happened a quarter of a century ago.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
You asked him how he defined the “best” way to determine a champion.

He gave his definition.

Now you’re telling him he’s wrong?

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

No, not wrong, just incomplete. He said the driver with the most wins and best average finish. What if they are not the same driver, as often happens? How do you determine the rest of the standings? I was TRYING to actually get him to flesh out his theory and develop it to a finished product, but I guess that requires more effort than he wants to put in. I'm all for alternatives to what we have now, which I despise, but you can't just throw out half an idea and walk away. Well, I guess you can. I keep trying to have conversations, while many others just want to talk in sound bites.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
You asked him how he defined the “best” way to determine a champion.

He gave his definition.

Now you’re telling him he’s wrong?

tenor.gif
Click to expand...
No, we're asking who should be champion when his two criteria are split between two different drivers. If one driver has the most wins and a different one has the best average, who's the champ? So far, we can't get an answer.
 
BobbyFord said:
I’ve been a fan since the 60s and this is the least involved I’ve been in that time period. I don’t care about championships. I don’t watch whatever they call the last ten races now. It’s no longer a viable sport, to me. I’m not interested in reality TV.
Click to expand...
And yet you keep discussing it.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
No, we're asking who should be champion when his two criteria are split between two different drivers. If one driver has the most wins and a different one has the best average, who's the champ? So far, we can't get an answer.
Click to expand...
You said “then you trot out an idea thats never been used” like it’s a prerequisite. If that was the case, we’d never have points system changes.
 
How about a system with best average finish over a whole season (which is a way of saying most points accumulated) but finishing 1st gives you the most points for that given race
 
ChexOrWrex said:
You said “then you trot out an idea thats never been used” like it’s a prerequisite. If that was the case, we’d never have points system changes.
Click to expand...
He re-opened this can of worms yesterday in post #116 with:

"It seems the criteria for determining a Champion isn’t what it used to be."

I don't know which "what it used to be" he's referring to, but it was never the criteria he's now advocating. That doesn't invalidate his method, but his opening implied he wanted 'what it used to be'. The only 'used to be' I know is the old pre-Chase season-long points system. He didn't offer his current proposal until several posts later.

Kenseth / Newman and Gordon / Labonte are just two past examples of when one driver finished the season with the most wins and a different driver had the best average. He's set both of those as championship criteria. If he wants to ignore those seasons, fine, but how would a future split like those would be reconciled going forward?
 
Last edited:
Snappy D said:
How about a system with best average finish over a whole season (which is a way of saying most points accumulated) but finishing 1st gives you the most points for that given race
Click to expand...
The best average finish may or may not give you the most points, ESPECIALLY if you bump the points for a win. In that scenario, Gordon would have smoked Labonte in 96', even though Labonte's average finish was around one whole position better on the season. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not against the CONCEPT, but it needs clarification.
 
Formerjackman said:
The best average finish may or may not give you the most points, ESPECIALLY if you bump the points for a win. In that scenario, Gordon would have smoked Labonte in 96', even though Labonte's average finish was around one whole position better on the season. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not against the CONCEPT, but it needs clarification.
Click to expand...
So I clarified I hope?
 
They're never going back to the old season long format. It's going on 17 years now. You either perform during the final 10 races or you're not winning a championship. Both Kevin and Denny had the final 4 gift wrapped for them thanks to their regular season performances. And rightfully so. Unfortunately they both fell asleep at the wheel the last 10 races expecting to just coast their way in while other drivers remained hungry. Denny got away with it but eventually tanked in the final. Kevin, well idk what happened with them. The bottom line is, all they had to do was continue to perform like they had been for the 26 other weeks and one of them would be the champion. They didn't do that though.
 
Snappy D said:
So I clarified I hope?
Click to expand...
Well, having the best average finish never guaranteed you would score the most points, so if you want THAT to be the primary criteria, then you really can't start awarding a bunch of extra points for wins. If you do, you have a good chance of getting a champion who didn't come out on top in EITHER category. I personally felt that the Latford System was perfectly fine, it just needed to reward wins and top fives a little more in my opinion. That being said, it would would still be conceivable to throw up about thirty 6-8th place finishes and top a guy who won a lot but was inconsistent. I'm OK with that, it is what it is, but I'm not sure everybody sees it that way. Certainly Brian France didn't.
 
Snappy D said:
but finishing 1st gives you the most points for that given race
Click to expand...

The sheer idiocy that anything else is possible continues to boggle the mind.

It's probably more frequent than not that the race winner doesn't score the most points under the stage points regime. And that second gets outscored by someone finishing in the teens.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
No, we're asking who should be champion when his two criteria are split between two different drivers. If one driver has the most wins and a different one has the best average, who's the champ? So far, we can't get an answer.
Click to expand...
That's easy, the one who scored the most points. Newman got the most wins but did little else. Kenseth got the best finishes he could and won the championship. I think he was deserving of it.
Oh, you wanted some one else answer? :)
 
gnomesayin said:
The sheer idiocy that anything else is possible continues to boggle the mind.

It's probably more frequent than not that the race winner doesn't score the most points under the stage points regime. And that second gets outscored by someone finishing in the teens.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the confusion could be alleviated if you just give the guy that finished first that day the most points. Stages and playoff points be damned
 
Team Penske said:
That's easy, the one who scored the most points. Newman got the most wins but did little else. Kenseth got the best finishes he could and won the championship. I think he was deserving of it.
Oh, you wanted some one else answer? :)
Click to expand...
They changed the points system the year after...and they have been screwing with it every since.
 
AdoubleU24 said:
They're never going back to the old season long format. It's going on 17 years now. You either perform during the final 10 races or you're not winning a championship. Both Kevin and Denny had the final 4 gift wrapped for them thanks to their regular season performances. And rightfully so. Unfortunately they both fell asleep at the wheel the last 10 races expecting to just coast their way in while other drivers remained hungry. Denny got away with it but eventually tanked in the final. Kevin, well idk what happened with them. The bottom line is, all they had to do was continue to perform like they had been for the 26 other weeks and one of them would be the champion. They didn't do that though.
Click to expand...
I agree, Elliott peaked at the right time. I would't go as far as saying they fell asleep. Hamlin had a couple races where his car was undrivable, and Harvick had some setbacks also. Team Elliott made less mistakes overall when it counted
 
StandOnIt said:
They changed the points system the year after...and they have been screwing with it every since.
Click to expand...
That is because they couldn't figure out anything better and they won't admit they are wrong. Of course changing it all the time is an admission they didn't get it right.
 
Team Penske said:
That is because they couldn't figure out anything better and they won't admit they are wrong. Of course changing it all the time is an admission they didn't get it right.
Click to expand...
I don't think "better" was ever part of the thought process. It was all about getting multiple drivers into contention in the final few races, whether they deserved to be there or not. Even though that goal was generally met, it didn't guarantee a "Game 7 walk off moment", so they kept fiddling until they got the current hot mess. The funny part is, other than maybe 2016, the current format hasn't really generated any of those unforgettable moments in the final race either. Much like this year, they have all been pretty anticlimactic. Even in 2016, the more "exciting" finish probably would have been Edwards racing Logano, not wrecking them both and Johnson basically inheriting the lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom