How can a playoff work in racing?

Mr. Gregory said:
I disagree. Yeah, Kenseth won 7 races and came up short, but the guy who edged him for the title won 6 and was usually not too far behind Kenseth when he was winning. Kenseth's ultimate downfall was that Phoenix race. The team sort of unraveled and he finished 23rd while Johnson finished 3rd. That 48 team will very rarely give you a mulligan come Chase time.

I've said this before, but Tony Stewart proved in 2011 that winning is rewarded enough already. Carl Edwards had a better average finish than him and lost the title because he didn't win enough races. If we try to reward winning even more, we're going to eventually throw consistency out of the equation completely.
Click to expand...
I never got why there's this misconception that wins haven't mattered enough. Except for Kurt Busch in the inaugural Chase in 2004, no other driver in the Chase era has won a championship with less than 5 wins. And in 5 of the 10 seasons of the Chase era, the driver that had the most wins of the season went on to win the championship. Just seems to me like they're trying to solve a problem that isn't really a problem.
 
As I said in the other thread, I really like the idea that a win secures a Chase berth. It's not likely that well ever have 16 or even 17 different winners in the first 26 races so I don't see how this can't work. I don't like the eliminations then again I don't like the stupid ass welfare points system at all. But eliminations are coming sooner or later. NASCAR wants it, the television partners want it, some of the drivers want it and it has the potential to draw in new viewers as gimmicky as it may be. It's going to happen, might as well come to peace with it.
 
Also, the fans that thought that winning needed to mean more - this is almost poetic karma. The current system already emphasizes it too much. If you have one bad race, you're out of it. Kevin Harvick had a near perfect season in 2010. He didn't rack up a ton of wins and that's the sole reason he lost the championship - nevermind that he was usually in the top five or top 10. But Jimmie "got hot" in those final 10 races. This proposed system which will happen sooner or later is even more to that degree - which is what fans have demanded. ONE bad race ends your season. If Kyle Busch has a tire go down in the closing laps at Dover, he's done, out of it. If Jimmie Johnson gets swept up in a wreck at Talladega, he's done. This is what fans wanted.
 
hey.....giants-n- packers won superbowls w/ wild card entry.....both 11-6 goin in.
college goin playoffs '14. .......like all pro sports.
it's time nascar does playoffs !!

funny thing is...betcha ain't a lot gonna change.....in terms a' front runners---1st 26 races !
big teams always have tha advantage.

but.....gives smaller teams lots more hope....IF....they can get a win--be in chase.....an can have chase yr like tony did ?...................big IF.....but that's what hope is ain't it ??
sorta like hope-n- dreams most a' nascar nation have....in their everyday lives ??
 
Let's have 10 chase races. Zero the points at 2000 points with the top 12 drivers given one point per position in the top 12, plus one point per win. Only chase drivers will score chase points. All other drivers score points the usual way. This is how chase points are awarded. The top 12 will be given points relative to how they finish against each other no matter what their race position is. The points break down this way.
1st ----70 pts.
2nd----58 pts.
3rd-----47 pts.
4th-----37 pts.
5th-----28 pts.
6th-----22 pts.
7th-----16 pts.
8th-----11 pts.
9th-----7 pts.
10th----4 pts.
11th----2 pts.
12th----1 pt.
This way one bad race doesn't eliminate a driver. And points are scored against other chase drivers to simulate a "playoffs" atmosphere. This is the best I could come up with if there must be a chase. I think I have an even better idea for points, but it doesn't include a chase.
 
image.jpg
 
hawg dawg said:
hey.....giants-n- packers won superbowls w/ wild card entry.....both 11-6 goin in.
college goin playoffs '14. .......like all pro sports.
it's time nascar does playoffs !!

funny thing is...betcha ain't a lot gonna change.....in terms a' front runners---1st 26 races !
big teams always have tha advantage.

but.....gives smaller teams lots more hope....IF....they can get a win--be in chase.....an can have chase yr like tony did ?...................big IF.....but that's what hope is ain't it ??
sorta like hope-n- dreams most a' nascar nation have....in their everyday lives ??
Click to expand...
Tryin to cipher that one made my eyes hurt dawg.
 
I've said this before, but Tony Stewart proved in 2011 that winning is rewarded enough already. Carl Edwards had a better average finish than him and lost the title because he didn't win enough races. If we try to reward winning even more, we're going to eventually throw consistency out of the equation completely.
Click to expand...
When Tony won he basically got hot for 10 races. I think he said at the beginning of the chase that he didn't deserve to be there, he barely got in.
 
I
Yogisd1 said:
Let's have 10 chase races. Zero the points at 2000 points with the top 12 drivers given one point per position in the top 12, plus one point per win. Only chase drivers will score chase points. All other drivers score points the usual way. This is how chase points are awarded. The top 12 will be given points relative to how they finish against each other no matter what their race position is. The points break down this way.
1st ----70 pts.
2nd----58 pts.
3rd-----47 pts.
4th-----37 pts.
5th-----28 pts.
6th-----22 pts.
7th-----16 pts.
8th-----11 pts.
9th-----7 pts.
10th----4 pts.
11th----2 pts.
12th----1 pt.
This way one bad race doesn't eliminate a driver. And points are scored against other chase drivers to simulate a "playoffs" atmosphere. This is the best I could come up with if there must be a chase. I think I have an even better idea for points, but it doesn't include a chase.
Click to expand...
Ive been saying that for about a year now... except a 1-12 system for 17 max points.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Also, the fans that thought that winning needed to mean more - this is almost poetic karma. The current system already emphasizes it too much. If you have one bad race, you're out of it. Kevin Harvick had a near perfect season in 2010. He didn't rack up a ton of wins and that's the sole reason he lost the championship - nevermind that he was usually in the top five or top 10. .
Click to expand...
Wasn't that under the old points system that they changed in order to emphasize wins?
 
SlicedBread22 said:
Wasn't that under the old points system that they changed in order to emphasize wins?
Click to expand...
It was the old points system, but it worked pretty much the same way. Only difference is that it was 5000 pts plus 10 pts per win at the start of the Chase instead of 2000 pts and 3 pts per win. Just that it was the top 12 in pts instead of the top 10 and 2 wildcards.
 
ToyYoda said:
It was the old points system, but it worked pretty much the same way. Only difference is that it was 5000 pts plus 10 pts per win at the start of the Chase instead of 2000 pts and 3 pts per win. Just that it was the top 12 in pts instead of the top 10 and 2 wildcards.
Click to expand...
I duno I remember someone showed me a chart on here once that showed the percentages of the points and it showed that the new points system rewards winning while punishing poor finishes much more than the old one by the time you get to about 14th or something like that the drivers percentages of points in comparison to the winners was about the same as 30th place the year before... I don't know the exact details.. hopefully the person who showed me that (I forget) will remember and be able to explain it better.
 
SlicedBread22 said:
I duno I remember someone showed me a chart on here once that showed the percentages of the points and it showed that the new points system rewards winning while punishing poor finishes much more than the old one by the time you get to about 14th or something like that the drivers percentages of points in comparison to the winners was about the same as 30th place the year before... I don't know the exact details.. hopefully the person who showed me that (I forget) will remember and be able to explain it better.
Click to expand...
That's true. A 43rd place finish under the old system gave a driver 34 of a possible 190 points (17.9%), while the new system gives them 1 out of a possible 48 (2.1%).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom