NASCAR considering changing points system

R

RustyFan4Ever

Guest
NASCAR considering changing points system
By Jenna Fryer, The Associated Press
August 2, 2003
4:58 PM EDT (2058 GMT)
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- NASCAR is considering changing its championship points system to give bigger rewards for winning poles and races. The current system favors consistency over winning.

The system, which began in 1975 and is often criticized, has been under attack this season while Matt Kenseth has built a whopping 232-point lead in the championship race with just one victory but a string of top-10 finishes.

"We are reviewing the points system, as we often do when there is talk about one driver having so big of a lead that it looks like the championship will be decided before the season is over," NASCAR vice president Jim Hunter said Saturday.











"So we will look at every viable option and at the end of the year apply it to the point standings and see how things might have been different."

One of the scenarios NASCAR is looking at is awarding a sizable points bonus to the race winner -- anywhere from an additional 10 points to 50 -- and giving a bonus for winning the pole.

Other options include awarding the same amount of points to drivers who finish 30th through 43rd, or not awarding any points after 36th position. Both of those scenarios would make it pointless for damaged cars to return to the racetrack.

NASCAR has already applied all those scenarios to past seasons and found that it never changed the series champion, Hunter said.

The current NASCAR points system was created by Bob Latford, who died on July 23. Latford invented the system on a request from NASCAR head Bill France Sr., first drawing it up on a ****tail napkin at the Boot Hill Saloon in Daytona Beach, Fla.

Under the current points system:


The winner of a race gets 175 points.


Second through sixth each get five points less than the place before them.


Seventh through 11th get four points less than the place before them.

ALSO
• How the current points system works






Twelfth and lower get three points less than the place before them.


All 43 places are awarded points, unlike many other major racing series that stop giving points after certain positions.


Drivers who lead a lap earn five bonus points.


The driver who leads the most laps in a single race earns five additional bonus points.

That format has created scenarios in which drivers play it safe, choosing not to risk much in going after victories when a top-10 finish will suffice.

"The way the championship points are structured, winning is not the most important thing," said four-time Winston Cup champion Jeff Gordon. "It pays the most points, but a top-five these days is almost as good as a win."

Brickyard 400
Lineup

Harvick sets track record

Leffler, Lepage race in

Foyt crashes in quals

Weather affects qualifying





The current system also encourages cars that have been damaged in an accident to make patchwork repairs to get back on the track and pick up a few more positions and points.

That practice caught NASCAR's attention last month at Daytona when the hood from Robby Gordon's repaired car flew off and into the grandstands.

"I do have a problem with the way it pays points all the way back to 43rd and that we have to go back out there with these wrecked race cars and ride around at a minimum speed," he said. "It's no fun for anybody and I know the competitors don't like it because you're in the way."

If NASCAR were using the same points system currently used by any of the major auto racing series, its current championship race would look a lot different.

Under the Formula One system, Bobby Labonte would have a one-point lead over Dale Earnhardt Jr. and 10 points would separate first and fifth place.

If CART's scoring system were used, Earnhardt would lead Kenseth by two points, with 24 points separating first and fifth place.

Under the IRL scoring system, Kenseth would have a 49-point advantage over Earnhardt and the top five would be separated by just 124 points.
 
I've thought there should be more of a reward for actually winning the race than there is now. However, I think that a bonus of more than 20 points is excessive.

With a 50 point or so bonus, as the article mentions as a possability, I think guys like Ryan Newman would have too much of an advantage when they frankly don't deserve it. Winning several races is great, but when your average finish when you don't win is 30th place or worse, that hardly seems worthy of great rewards.

Also, I love the idea of giving 30th-43rd place the same points. Seeing patched together cars in the way when it matters just bugs the crap out of me. :angry:
 
I would like to see it revised a little anyway. Winning ought to count more than 5 points, but certainly not 50. 10 to 20 would be better. I would also not award leader points to leads under caution or past 36 place either.
Pole position ability doesn't have much to do with how good you run the race. Unless they want to make the cars start the race on their qualifying setup I don't see any reason to start awarding points for it and just adding another cost to going racing. After all the one engine rule was put in to prevent the special qualifying engines and therefore extra costs.
 
I'd like to see at least 5,maybe 10 more points awarded to a race winner,the 2nd place finisher(by leading most laps)shouldn't be able to get the same amount of points(180 pts)as the leader in the current system,also it seems to Me that a win should account for more than just 5 more points,or the same difference as 3ed from 2nd place.

I also like the 5 point bonus for pole position,I'd also add 3 points for the outside pole position as that's not much easier than getting the pole itself.

I also would like to see the pit-crew with the best average pit-time speeds during the race receive 5(owner)points for that event,it's a team sport,right?

I'm against not giving any points to 30th position,awarding 43 points to 37th(averahe position points) & back drivers sounds about right to Me,since these are also the provisional starting spots.
I do think that each position should receive some points for all of Their hard work & teamwork,despite bad race luck or mexhanical failure & etc.,JMO! ;)
 
I think they should award points for all the Qualified positions and then invert the field. Note, provisionals recieve no points and still chase the field.
 
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
 
Originally posted by 17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
I noticed the same thing,17.Irony...gotta love it. ;)
 
Originally posted by 17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
Would you please point out where he is "complaining"????? :angry:

It seems to me that whenever there is an article which includes something that Jeff Gordon has said, you seem to think he is complaining.
 
Originally posted by 97forever+Aug 3 2003, 11:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (97forever @ Aug 3 2003, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
I noticed the same thing,17.Irony...gotta love it. ;) [/b][/quote]
You too, 97!
 
Well, the fans wouldnt enjoy someone taking the points lead by 300 or 400 points. I think NASCAR should reward the championship points on wins and not base it all on consistency. The way it works these days, someone could win no races at all and still take home the championship.
 
Originally posted by majestyx+Aug 3 2003, 05:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (majestyx @ Aug 3 2003, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
Would you please point out where he is "complaining"????? :angry:

It seems to me that whenever there is an article which includes something that Jeff Gordon has said, you seem to think he is complaining. [/b][/quote]
Just waiting around hoping 17 would show up...but nope,he leaves this to me. :p

Hate to say this,Maj ol' buddy---but Jeff HAS been one of the most vocal drivers with an opinion regarding a dislike for the current point system.And considering most of his published remarks lately have been of a complaining nature,it is easy to hear the whine in his voice regarding this.Guess that is to be expected----like every driver out there,Gordon wants to win it yet again.Fortunately, like about 90% of the fans,Jeff sees the drive for 5 turning into a chase for second.Guess that just leaves him wanting to vent a little.And yeah---vent he has.

(But if it makes you feel better(which I seriously doubt it will),Jeff seems the model of reserved composure when compared to the new king of tears Jimmie Johnson!NOW this guy is crying because Rusty wont move over and let him have the position??Explain that one to me.) :p

Ok...think I'll go hide now.
 
In light of Kevin's win today, I think there should be an small additional bonus (say 5 pts or so) for someone who wins from the pole.

IMHO that takes a great car and a great driver and a great team to pull off. Surely worth 5 points.

There definetly needs to be a bigger bonus for winning. I like Matt a lot, and consistancy should be rewarded, but a win should be a LOT more important than finishing 5th.
 
Originally posted by 17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 12:01 PM
Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
What???I think a lot of #24 fans still get a twinge when They think about a driver winning the Trophy with 2 wins,while the 2nd place finisher in point standings had 10 wins,to Me that showed some major flaws in the current point system back then,should have already been tweaked(IMO)some years ago!!!
10 wins should beat out 2 wins!
I'm not bashing Terry Labonte,or trying to take anything away from the #5's hard teamwork in the 1996 season!

It's interesting to note that if the winner of a race got 5 more points,then Jeff Gordon would have won the 1996 Championship by +3 points!The final point standings in 1996 were:Terry winning with 4,657 points,while Jeff had 4,620 points,or -37 points back!If each driver had received 5 more points for a win back then,Terry would have finished with 4,667(2 wins x 5 points=10 pts),while Jeff would have finished with 4,670 points(10 wins x 5 points=50 pts) thereby winning the Title in 1996! :eek:
 
Currently, this is how top ten are awarded points:

1st place: 175, 2nd place: 170, points 3rd place: 165, points 4th: 160, points 5th: 155, points 6th: 150, points 7th: 146 points, 8th place: 142 points, 9th place: 138 points, 10th place: 134 points.


I think that there needs to be more sepperation between the whole top 10, so drivers will try harder not only going for the win, but for 3rd instead of settling with 4th. In my plan:

1st place: 205, 2nd place: 195, points 3rd place: 184, points 4th: 176, points 5th: 168, points 6th: 160, points 7th: 152 points, 8th place: 146 points, 9th place: 140 points, 10th place: 134 points.

I'd give a 5 point bonus for the pole, 4 points for the outside pole, 3 for third, 2 for fourth, and 1 for 5th. Qualifying should be taken more seriously, and those teams that do qualify well week in and week out desereve something.
 
I don't really see why points should be awarded for qualifying position. How you run in qualifying has not shown to be a major help in winning. Many times the winner has come from back in the pack and the pole sitter has hasn't won. Also Nascar is attempting to reduce the costs and if you start awarding points for that then it starts a new round of rising costs. If they do start awarding points for qualifying then make them start on their qualifying setup.
 
The only fair way to award points is to do so at the end. How else can Lil'E ever win a championship? If they wait until the end of the race then NASCAR can decide if some races are worth more points than others, depending on if he wins any or not. Or, even if a 12th place finish is more deserving than actually winning the race. They bend over and take it from him for everything else, why not just add the points as well...
 
Originally posted by majestyx+Aug 3 2003, 04:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (majestyx @ Aug 3 2003, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
Would you please point out where he is "complaining"????? :angry:

It seems to me that whenever there is an article which includes something that Jeff Gordon has said, you seem to think he is complaining. [/b][/quote]
define 'complaining' :einstein:
 
Originally posted by 97forever+Aug 3 2003, 05:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (97forever @ Aug 3 2003, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -majestyx@Aug 3 2003, 05:30 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--17_Fan
@Aug 3 2003, 11:01 AM
The thing that bugs me is the person that is doing the most complaining about this point system is the same person that has benefited from it while winning four championships.

Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.

Would you please point out where he is "complaining"????? :angry:

It seems to me that whenever there is an article which includes something that Jeff Gordon has said, you seem to think he is complaining.
Just waiting around hoping 17 would show up...but nope,he leaves this to me. :p

Hate to say this,Maj ol' buddy---but Jeff HAS been one of the most vocal drivers with an opinion regarding a dislike for the current point system.And considering most of his published remarks lately have been of a complaining nature,it is easy to hear the whine in his voice regarding this.Guess that is to be expected----like every driver out there,Gordon wants to win it yet again.Fortunately, like about 90% of the fans,Jeff sees the drive for 5 turning into a chase for second.Guess that just leaves him wanting to vent a little.And yeah---vent he has.

(But if it makes you feel better(which I seriously doubt it will),Jeff seems the model of reserved composure when compared to the new king of tears Jimmie Johnson!NOW this guy is crying because Rusty wont move over and let him have the position??Explain that one to me.) :p

Ok...think I'll go hide now. [/b][/quote]
Sorry Bud, my time is limited on the computer.


BTW Maj...I think it's just his voice...even when he is jovial...you can still hear that whiney twang in it. :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
According to Websters:

complain: 1. discuss one's grievance with others. 2. state as a grievance.

therefore,

grievance: 1. cause for complaint. 2. complaint.


So, is this what you are referring to him "complaining" about?
"I do have a problem with the way it pays points all the way back to 43rd and that we have to go back out there with these wrecked race cars and ride around at a minimum speed," he said. "It's no fun for anybody and I know the competitors don't like it because you're in the way."

Because if that is the case, he is not the only one that has said this. He's just the one that was quoted in this particular article. There are other drivers that say that wrecked cars on the track are in their way ALL the time. Bill Elliott said pretty much the same thing regarding lapped cars after yesterdays race.
 
Originally posted by 17_Fan@Aug 4 2003, 07:52 PM
BTW Maj...I think it's just his voice...even when he is jovial...you can still hear that whiney twang in it. :D :D :D :D :D :D
He can't help it if he's nasally when he talks..... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by 24thunder+Aug 3 2003, 09:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (24thunder @ Aug 3 2003, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--17_Fan@Aug 3 2003, 12:01 PM
Nobody complained when Terry LaBonte won the 1996 championship with only two wins.
What???I think a lot of #24 fans still get a twinge when They think about a driver winning the Trophy with 2 wins,while the 2nd place finisher in point standings had 10 wins,to Me that showed some major flaws in the current point system back then,should have already been tweaked(IMO)some years ago!!!
10 wins should beat out 2 wins!
I'm not bashing Terry Labonte,or trying to take anything away from the #5's hard teamwork in the 1996 season!

It's interesting to note that if the winner of a race got 5 more points,then Jeff Gordon would have won the 1996 Championship by +3 points!The final point standings in 1996 were:Terry winning with 4,657 points,while Jeff had 4,620 points,or -37 points back!If each driver had received 5 more points for a win back then,Terry would have finished with 4,667(2 wins x 5 points=10 pts),while Jeff would have finished with 4,670 points(10 wins x 5 points=50 pts) thereby winning the Title in 1996! :eek: [/b][/quote]
On another interesting note...if NASCAR doesn't black flag Dale Jarrett at Watkins Glen for a tiny puff of smoke & make him come in the pits, which they couldn't find anything wrong with the car. They take a top 10 car & turn it into a 31st or 32nd place car. Oh by the way, Jeff only beat DJ by 14 points to win the championship that year. Seems like WG was the difference there for Dale.

BTW 24T...I don't recall anyone complaining about the point system when Terry won the championship in 96.
 
Originally posted by majestyx@Aug 4 2003, 06:57 PM
According to Websters:

complain: 1. discuss one's grievance with others. 2. state as a grievance.

therefore,

grievance: 1. cause for complaint. 2. complaint.


So, is this what you are referring to him "complaining" about?
"I do have a problem with the way it pays points all the way back to 43rd and that we have to go back out there with these wrecked race cars and ride around at a minimum speed," he said. "It's no fun for anybody and I know the competitors don't like it because you're in the way."

Because if that is the case, he is not the only one that has said this. He's just the one that was quoted in this particular article. There are other drivers that say that wrecked cars on the track are in their way ALL the time. Bill Elliott said pretty much the same thing regarding lapped cars after yesterdays race.
Yeah, but Bill said it after Jeff...monkey see, mokey do, not that I think Bill is a monkey. :D
 
BTW 24T...I don't recall anyone complaining about the point system when Terry won the championship in 96.

I was just pointing out that IMO,any driver with 10 wins in a season should win the Title over a driver with just 2 wins!It's one thing to reward consistency,but that many more wins should get a driver the Title. ;)
 
If the championship came down to most wins Rusty would have a few more.

1993: 10 wins
1994:8 wins
 
Originally posted by RustyFan4Ever@Aug 5 2003, 10:16 AM
If the championship came down to most wins Rusty would have a few more.

1993: 10 wins
1994:8 wins
I wouldn't have any problem with Rusty Wallace being a 3 time Champion,really sounds about right,Jeff Gordon being a 5 time Champion sounds right also,no if U just figured by most wins Jeff Gordon would be a 6 time Champion as His 7 wins in 1999 season led the curcuit :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom