Final Four

ToyYoda said:
Like 1985 when an 11-win Bill Elliott lost the title to a 3-win Darrell Waltrip, or 1996 when a 10-win Jeff Gordon lost the title to a 2-win Terry Labonte.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember well all of the cries of fans (including me) about how bad the antiquated points system was, rewarding dogged consistency over wins. VERY VALID POINTS. The current system is better. It rewards aggressive driving, finishing race stages in the top 10, and winning. Both Elliot's and Gordon's huge win seasons should have secured a title.
 
Conover said:
Yes I remember well all of the cries of fans (including me) about how bad the antiquated points system was, rewarding dogged consistency over wins. VERY VALID POINTS. The current system is better. It rewards aggressive driving, finishing race stages in the top 10, and winning. Both Elliot's and Gordon's huge win seasons should have secured a title.
Click to expand...
What you see as antiquated, others of us see as ahead of its time.
 
Conover said:
Yes I remember well all of the cries of fans (including me) about how bad the antiquated points system was, rewarding dogged consistency over wins. VERY VALID POINTS. The current system is better. It rewards aggressive driving, finishing race stages in the top 10, and winning. Both Elliot's and Gordon's huge win seasons should have secured a title.
Click to expand...
In 1996, Gordon and Labonte had the same number of top 5s and top 10s. While Jeff had 10 wins, Terry still had a higher average finish. Gordon had more DNFs and more poor finishes.

Terry’s 1996 Championship is justified. He had a stronger more consistent season.
 
Last edited:
ChexOrWrex said:
In 1996, Gordon and Labonte had the same number of top 5s and top 10s. While Jeff had 10 wins, Terry still had a higher average finish. Gordon had more DNFs and more poor finishes.

Terry’s 1996 Championship is justified. He had a stronger more consistent season.
Click to expand...
People fail to see that best season doesn't = most wins.


Like if someone wins say 8 races but the 8 they lose they finish 40th that's not as good as someone who say wins 2 races but the rest they lose they are still in the top 10 in most of those races.

So I laugh when people bring up how many races someone wins in a season without also trying to look at how the races they lost win, looking at avg finish, and any other bonus points they got back then.
 
Team Penske said:
Because some of us like a system where the best car average for the year wins the championship. They already have individual race champions.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point... These ppl are condemning seasons where Bill and Jeff won 10+ races and didn't win the cup.. sorry to hurt ur argument but I think we're on the same side of it lol
 
"Winning is all that matters" is a tired cliche. Racing is all about getting the best possible finish IMO. Everyone wants to win, that's a given. But you don't see the guy in 16th place pulling over and parking it with 5 laps left because he realized he doesn't have a shot at 1st place. Because winning ISN'T the only thing that matters! That's the bottom line. Same deal with the championship. Everyone who is leghumping this Homestead Cup playoff system only cares about a dramatic battle for 1st that gets decided on the last lap of the season finale. Who cares if the champion locks it up at Phoenix? Does that make Homestead irrelevant? Hell no. NASCAR and racing in general is exciting regardless of what points or awards are on the line. I think some of us forget that at times.

Many of us feel that the championship is now watered down. Like dpkimmel and others have noted, you'll never again see an epic finale like Atlanta '92. Nothing in this current format will ever have the potential to even come close.
 
You know the difference between a pit bull humping your leg and a toy poodle humping your leg?

You let the pit bull decide when he's finished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom