FAQ on the New Points System

majestyx

majestyx

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
8,145
Points
408
Location
Burleson, TX
FAQ: Nextel Cup Chase for the Championship
January 20, 2004
9:56 AM EST (1456 GMT)

Why is NASCAR making this modification?

NASCAR is changing the way its premier series champion is crowned to add excitement to every race and to provide a better balance between winning races and performing consistently. The new format will enhance competition – all season long.

How do drivers get into the "Chase for the Championship?"

After 26 races in the 36-race NASCAR NEXTEL Cup season, the top 10 drivers in points and any others within 400 points of the first-place driver will earn berths in a 10-race NASCAR NEXTEL Cup "Chase for the Championship".

Are there any changes to the point system?

One change – race winners will receive 180 points instead of the 175 they earned previously. This will ensure that a race runner-up cannot earn the same number of points as a race winner. Five-point bonuses for leading a lap and leading the most laps remain, for a maximum of 190 points for race winners.

Why the 400-point cut-off to get into the championship chase?

While no one has ever come back from 400 points with 10 to go to win the championship, NASCAR recognizes the possibility of late-season comebacks that can land a driver in the final top 10. The 400-point cutoff was arrived at after extensive research and modeling.

Are the TV partners the driving force?

Again, this idea was introduced by NASCAR. NASCAR discussed this format change thoroughly with its TV partners.

Who devised this plan?

In making this modification, NASCAR used its full, company-wide resources to thoroughly research history, examine possible future point scenarios, and address various intangibles that could determine a championship. Bottom line: this was a true group effort.

Did Matt Kenseth's 2003 season cause this change?

Not at all. NASCAR always examines the point system annually and seeks to identify ways to improve the system. Matt Kenseth and his team won the championship under the same format that was in place when other great champions like Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt, David Pearson, Darrell Waltrip and Jeff Gordon won championships. Also, Matt Kenseth led the points for a modern-era record 33 consecutive weeks. There is no way you can detract from a great season like.

Why won't there be points awarded for winning poles?

Last year NASCAR created the one-engine rule, which mandated teams used the same engine for qualifying and the race. That was a cost-containment move, so teams would not be spending money on engines used solely for qualifying. Awarding points for poles could likely end up costing teams more money.

Can this new format lead to over-aggressive driving and/or blocking on the race track?

NASCAR NEXTEL Cup drivers are professionals, the best racers in the world. NASCAR is confident they'll compete accordingly. NASCAR is prepared to maintain the integrity of the sport and enforce the rules.

Will this result in schedule changes?

As outlined in the "Realignment 2004 and Beyond" concept, NASCAR will consider schedule changes if the various ownership groups involved are interested in switching some of their dates.

Are tracks involved in the "chase" a representative mix of the series? And won't those drivers who have excelled at the tracks involved in the "chase" have an advantage going into the last 10 races?

Actually, the last 10 do represent all types of tracks, except for road courses. It includes the series' biggest track (2.66-mile Talladega), intermediate tracks (1.5-mile Kansas and Charlotte) and a short track (.526-mile Martinsville).

The last 10 also includes one of NASCAR's most historic, in Darlington. There are high banks and flat tracks, concrete and asphalt. ... As for drivers having an advantage, as always, the driver able to perform best on a variety of tracks will create his advantage. In addition, the unpredictability of the sport each and every weekend will continue to play a key role.

Is there concern about losing hardcore fans with this change?

NASCAR values all of its fans and their opinions. NASCAR believes trying to attract more fans can only benefit everyone involved in the sport. At this point, NASCAR's fans have received limited information, but once the facts are understood, NASCAR is confident its fans will realize the changes enhance the competition, broaden the amount of championship contenders and add late-season drama.

*********************************************************

Anyone care to comment???
 
Seems like a lot of effort went in to this new system just to make sure none of the Bodine's get any points/prize money this year. :p
 
I just can't see how putting the screws to the 11, 12, and 13tth plsce drivers can make the race better. :idunno:
 
Originally posted by majestyx@Jan 20 2004, 03:08 PM


Why is NASCAR making this modification?

NASCAR is changing the way its premier series champion is crowned to add excitement to every race and to provide a better balance between winning races and performing consistently. The new format will enhance competition – all season long.

Click to expand...
:bslfag: :bslfag: and more :bslfag: . The new format penalizes the points leader and encourages a driver to be just good enough.

Case in point: (all drivers used in the following example chosen at random. I am not trying to play favorites, so save your breath.) After race 26, Tony Stewart has a 236 point lead over Mark Martin, with Jimmie Johnson in 3rd, 308 points behind. By finishing 2nd in the race, Jeremy Mayfield passes Kevin Harvick in the overall standings and moves into 10th, 878 points behind the leader. Now, at the start of the next race, Stewart's lead over Martin is now 5 points. His lead over Mayfield is now a measley 45 points. Gone is everything the 20 team accomplished over 26 races save a token pittance of a lead.

Over the course of those final 10 races, Mayfield runs like a raped ape while Tony finishes in the 10th to 20th spot. Mayfield wins the championship, but only because of a well timed streak of luck coupled with good performance. Is this the level of competition we as race fans want to see? Is it fair that Tony's lead that he works all season to build is taken away from him?

Like I keep saying, it's artificial competition. Maybe NASCAR is worried that the wrong driver might run off with the title (again) and ratings will drop.

I hear the arguments that in the NFL, once the playoffs start all the teams are 0-0. However, the best teams get a week off and their games at home. NASCAR is going to reward it's top performer all season long with what equates to one lousy position on the track.

Doesn't matter. I'm done with it. This form of entertainment no longer even approaches the sport I grew up watching. If I want entertainment, I'll rent a movie. And now, when I want a sport, I'll watch football or baseball.
 
It absolutely sucks! This coming year will have an * behind it to call attention to the year Nascar screwed everyone! Even if Jeff Gordon wins under this facade of crapola, it will be a tainted win, unless of course he would still win when the other rules are applied. The local turtle races have a smarter sanctioning body!
 
But watch the sheep flock right back to them in a month. That's why NASCAR did this...they knew 95% of the fans would watch anyway.

I'll express my displeasure by not ordering those four race tickets this year, by not purchasing any more NASCAR-related items, by not tuning in to the TV or to MRN on Sundays. I don't feel it's appropriate to boycott the individual team sponsors as they did not make this call, so I'll still buy the same amount of Coors Light and Valvoline and Kellogg's cereal as I always have. The money I would have spent on four tickets to the races will now be spent elsewhere. The money earmarked for tshirts, caps, and diecast of my favorite driver, as well as gifts for the other race fans on my list for stuff of their favorite drivers, will now be spent elsewhere. Maybe on NFL stuff...who knows?
 
Wow. I feel like I traveled back time, if only these fine ladies and gents knew it could only get worse. Way worse.
 
EatMorePossum said:
But watch the sheep flock right back to them in a month. That's why NASCAR did this...they knew 95% of the fans would watch anyway.

I'll express my displeasure by not ordering those four race tickets this year, by not purchasing any more NASCAR-related items, by not tuning in to the TV or to MRN on Sundays. I don't feel it's appropriate to boycott the individual team sponsors as they did not make this call, so I'll still buy the same amount of Coors Light and Valvoline and Kellogg's cereal as I always have. The money I would have spent on four tickets to the races will now be spent elsewhere. The money earmarked for tshirts, caps, and diecast of my favorite driver, as well as gifts for the other race fans on my list for stuff of their favorite drivers, will now be spent elsewhere. Maybe on NFL stuff...who knows?
Click to expand...

Narrator: 95% of the fans did not, in fact, continue to watch.
 
I totally forgot the Southern 500 was in the first Chase
 
Hated it then, hated it in between, hate it now. While I do find the present incarnation of rewarding drivers for performance an improvement, the concept of win a single race you're in and the winner take all aspect of the final race offends me and is not compatible with motorsports in my opinion. There are far too many variables that are out of the driver's and team's hands to award a champion that way. The old system, while in need of some tweaking, rewarded excellence over the long haul which tended to negate the vagaries of competing in a mechanical machine against 40 other people at the same time.
 
Racing is subject to the same commercial forces as all the other sports. Playoffs exist for the exact same reasons in just about every professional sport... to add sales and marketing appeal. No sport needs a playoff for legitimate sporting reasons... just for sales and marketing. (A single exception: with 32 teams in the NFL, there is a sporting need for two divisions and a one-game playoff.)

As one who has followed and studied many forms of racing for five decades, my firm opinion is that the traditional Latford championship format is an abomination that was never intended to crown the best driver as champion. It was designed to encourage full fields and to keep the points close until the end. In other words, sales and marketing. It under rewarded winners and artificially propped up mid field runners. It encouraged a "coast & collect" mentality among many teams. It crowned the wrong guy in some years. I hated that system from Day 1 in 1975.

The current championship system is not perfect, IMO, and if I owned Nascar I'd change it. But it does reward winning more than Nascar has ever done, it does restore the relevance of the regular season, it does reward full-year excellence, and it does allow the best racers to pull a meaningful points gap over non-contenders. All of those are serious shortcomings of the Latford championship format. So be careful what you wish for.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Racing is subject to the same commercial forces as all the other sports. Playoffs exist for the exact same reasons in just about every professional sport... to add sales and marketing appeal. No sport needs a playoff for legitimate sporting reasons... just for sales and marketing. (A single exception: with 32 teams in the NFL, there is a sporting need for two divisions and a one-game playoff.)

As one who has followed and studied many forms of racing for five decades, my firm opinion is that the traditional Latford championship format is an abomination that was never intended to crown the best driver as champion. It was designed to encourage full fields and to keep the points close until the end. In other words, sales and marketing. It under rewarded winners and artificially propped up mid field runners. It encouraged a "coast & collect" mentality among many teams. It crowned the wrong guy in some years. I hated that system from Day 1 in 1975.

The current championship system is not perfect, IMO, and if I owned Nascar I'd change it. But it does reward winning more than Nascar has ever done, it does restore the relevance of the regular season, it does reward full-year excellence, and it does allow the best racers to pull a meaningful points gap over non-contenders. All of those are serious shortcomings of the Latford championship format. So be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
I disagree in that it is my opinion that you really cant reward a full season of excellence when you have a one race winner take all that crowns a champion. Kevin Harvick goes out and say wins 13 races, most top 5's and top 10's. He makes it to the Monster Energy Bowl in Miami, an guy like lets say Austin Dillon gets there with his one win and manages to point his way like Newman did. Harvick has problems and Dillon finishes ahead of the other 3. You can honestly say that he had a better season than Harvick?
 
Maybe have points for a restrictor plate race on Sat at every track and then points again for a normal on Sunday.
 
download-6274.jpg
 
LewTheShoe said:
Racing is subject to the same commercial forces as all the other sports. Playoffs exist for the exact same reasons in just about every professional sport... to add sales and marketing appeal. No sport needs a playoff for legitimate sporting reasons... just for sales and marketing. (A single exception: with 32 teams in the NFL, there is a sporting need for two divisions and a one-game playoff.)

As one who has followed and studied many forms of racing for five decades, my firm opinion is that the traditional Latford championship format is an abomination that was never intended to crown the best driver as champion. It was designed to encourage full fields and to keep the points close until the end. In other words, sales and marketing. It under rewarded winners and artificially propped up mid field runners. It encouraged a "coast & collect" mentality among many teams. It crowned the wrong guy in some years. I hated that system from Day 1 in 1975.

The current championship system is not perfect, IMO, and if I owned Nascar I'd change it. But it does reward winning more than Nascar has ever done, it does restore the relevance of the regular season, it does reward full-year excellence, and it does allow the best racers to pull a meaningful points gap over non-contenders. All of those are serious shortcomings of the Latford championship format. So be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Well, see that's not true for one reason. As far as I know there isn't any sport other than racing where you play every single person at least once. With racing you race everyone every week and have the same chance to beat them. In football you don't play everyone in a season, baseball, basketball, etc. you don't play every single person during a season. So at the end of the season you take the best teams from each division, etc and put them in a playoff. Then each conferences champion faces each other to see who the best of the best is. Sometimes in them championship games you could play someone you didn't play ONCE in the whole season. NASCAR, you're not going to be racing against someone you didn't race during the first 35 races.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Racing is subject to the same commercial forces as all the other sports. Playoffs exist for the exact same reasons in just about every professional sport... to add sales and marketing appeal. No sport needs a playoff for legitimate sporting reasons... just for sales and marketing. (A single exception: with 32 teams in the NFL, there is a sporting need for two divisions and a one-game playoff.)

As one who has followed and studied many forms of racing for five decades, my firm opinion is that the traditional Latford championship format is an abomination that was never intended to crown the best driver as champion. It was designed to encourage full fields and to keep the points close until the end. In other words, sales and marketing. It under rewarded winners and artificially propped up mid field runners. It encouraged a "coast & collect" mentality among many teams. It crowned the wrong guy in some years. I hated that system from Day 1 in 1975.

The current championship system is not perfect, IMO, and if I owned Nascar I'd change it. But it does reward winning more than Nascar has ever done, it does restore the relevance of the regular season, it does reward full-year excellence, and it does allow the best racers to pull a meaningful points gap over non-contenders. All of those are serious shortcomings of the Latford championship format. So be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Sure and Kyle Bush could have won the championship under any format
 
I've learned to live with the chase or the playoffs or whatever they're calling it now. The only format I truly despised was the 2014-2016 format, all of the other ones have been at least tolerable.
 
I just love the current points sytsem. There are many ways a driver can earn points in the first half
of the race so that if he is wrecked out all is not lost. Of course my first experience of racing was back in 63 which we could get some points during the heat races before going for the Main.
Today there is more strategy for all those extra points and the drivers now have to work harder. No more cruising till the end.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Racing is subject to the same commercial forces as all the other sports. Playoffs exist for the exact same reasons in just about every professional sport... to add sales and marketing appeal. No sport needs a playoff for legitimate sporting reasons... just for sales and marketing. (A single exception: with 32 teams in the NFL, there is a sporting need for two divisions and a one-game playoff.)

As one who has followed and studied many forms of racing for five decades, my firm opinion is that the traditional Latford championship format is an abomination that was never intended to crown the best driver as champion. It was designed to encourage full fields and to keep the points close until the end. In other words, sales and marketing. It under rewarded winners and artificially propped up mid field runners. It encouraged a "coast & collect" mentality among many teams. It crowned the wrong guy in some years. I hated that system from Day 1 in 1975.

The current championship system is not perfect, IMO, and if I owned Nascar I'd change it. But it does reward winning more than Nascar has ever done, it does restore the relevance of the regular season, it does reward full-year excellence, and it does allow the best racers to pull a meaningful points gap over non-contenders. All of those are serious shortcomings of the Latford championship format. So be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Latford system and other similar flat points scales are quite flawed and do not distribute points in a sensible way that rewards top performance. I commented on this during the pre-Chase days, though I didn't post much on racing forums at the time. As you say, winning and finishing toward the front is under-rewarded, and safe mid-pack consistency is over-rewarded. I think abomination is a bit strong. There are occasions in which the wrong driver won the championship, but I can't think of any in which the champion driver wasn't clearly among the top two or three performers for the season. If comparing to the current system, it is still quite possible for a driver who isn't among the top five over the course of the entire season to get hot in the playoffs and win the Homestead finale. Less so now than from 2014-2016, but still feasible.

That possibility certainly exists in some of the major team sports as well (sixth-seeded wild cards have won Super Bowls). My opinion is that playoffs and 'postseasons' are much more inevitable and natural in team sports than they are in either individual sports or motorsports, as evidenced by them evolving much earlier and more uniformly in the former than the latter. I agree that playoffs are largely a commercial concern, and it is why they continue to expand in several major sports. NASCAR's attempt to graft a playoffs onto its season would be easier to defend on these grounds if it had been commercially successful. It has not. There is no actual evidence that interest in the latter portion of the season has been improved. Only two major variables seem to govern the differences in viewership among NASCAR races: 1) when it occurs on the schedule (earlier races tend to rate higher) and 2) which track it takes place at (some notable venues are significantly more popular). The only event that has shown an increase relative to the season at large is the Homestead finale. That's it. Playoffs cut-off races don't rate higher than others, showing that NASCAR's version of eliminations don't move more fans to watch. They hype those endlessly, and the general audience doesn't care. They could achieve the same result with a 35-race regular season and one-off finale.

Is there another example of a sport that has created a playoffs, and after a long period the playoffs portion of the season is much less popular and viewed than the regular season? If so, it is probably the best argument possible that that sport doesn't benefit from having playoffs, or at least that it shouldn't be a major focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom