Nascar creates new rule for final race....

You wanna see drivers really go for it all? Only award points to the winner.
 
The only difference between the new points system and the old system is the scale. It was tiered so drivers got a greater reward for finishing closer to the top, and you weren't punished as much for finishing towards the back. Simple as that. Again, if they added more bonus points for winning, it would have been perfect.

I think NASCAR was right, a lot of you don't seem to understand the old points system :p
 
TooSweet said:
The only difference between the new points system and the old system is the scale. It was tiered so drivers got a greater reward for finishing closer to the top, and you weren't punished as much for finishing towards the back. Simple as that. Again, if they added more bonus points for winning, it would have been perfect.

I think NASCAR was right, a lot of you don't seem to understand the old points system :p
Click to expand...
Because you're so much smarter than the rest of the forum
 
Good drivers and teams used to be able to catch up by running top 5's consistently, and winning a couple. Now one bad race in the chase and you're toast. Jr could have been a lot closer after that blown engine, and we know a lot of fans would have liked that.
 
I find some of this stuff hilarious.

NASCAR changes something and folks wizz and moan about it for TEN years. Then, those same time those people start talking about making changes to the changes.

:confused:
 
MAGICMILER said:
How about having DangIcrashed or Pastrami drive instead.....
Click to expand...

He wanted to assure whoever he picked would make the team look good since no driver points would be rewarded.

JJ has it sewn up, he is going golf cart surfing.
 
TooSweet said:
I liked the way the old system was tiered. There was a 5 point separation between the first several spots, then 4, then 3 throughout the rest of the field. There was more emphasis on finishing as high as possible. The difference between 4th and 5th should NOT be the same as 37th and 38th. Who cares if some fans didn't understand it? Is that going to turn them off of the sport? It's not like it was rocket science anyway.

The new system sucks.
Click to expand...

NASCAR's old points system was asinine. The new one is less asinine. Not every spot deserves point. 34 points for last place give me a break.
 
I really like the points system now. The only thing I don't like is when some scrub like Travis Kvapil stays out under caution and picks up a bonus point. I think it should be for green laps led only, other than that I think it's great. Also I'd bump up the reward for most laps led in a race to say 3 because I think it's a big deal if you can accomplish that, it sure doesn't happen by accident.

I like how a position gained pays the same wherever you are in the field. Is the battle for 35th less important than 5th? Sure it is, but that is reflected in the points awarded for that finishing position.
 
KevinWI said:
NASCAR's old points system was asinine. The new one is less asinine. Not every spot deserves point. 34 points for last place give me a break.
Click to expand...

In the end, what difference does it make? Does it really matter if it's 34 or 340? Nobody remembers or even cares how many points a driver gets; they are remembered for where they finish in the standings.

3wideinturn1 said:
I like how a position gained pays the same wherever you are in the field. Is the battle for 35th less important than 5th? Sure it is, but that is reflected in the points awarded for that finishing position.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. I think the points difference between 3rd and 8th place should be greater than the difference between 33rd and 38th.
 
TooSweet said:
In the end, what difference does it make? Does it really matter if it's 34 or 340? Nobody remembers or even cares how many points a driver gets; they are remembered for where they finish in the standings.
Click to expand...

Apparently you care since you were just complaining about how the old system was better.
 
KevinWI said:
Apparently you care since you were just complaining about how the old system was better.
Click to expand...

It was better because of how it was tiered. The amount of points has nothing to do with it.

Apparently FenderBumper is the only person who understands the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just call it quits on this one
 
TooSweet said:
It was better because of how it was tiered. The amount of points has nothing to do with it.

Apparently FenderBumper is the only person who understands the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just call it quits on this one
Click to expand...
Trying to condition the audience by praising the people who agree with you. A bold strategy.

The old system was uncompetitive. Less points in between positions means closer championships races.
 
Smoke14 said:
I find some of this stuff hilarious.

NASCAR changes something and folks wizz and moan about it for TEN years. Then, those same time those people start talking about making changes to the changes.

:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm fine with the present system. I'm just pointing out it backfired in some ways.
 
TooSweet said:
It was better because of how it was tiered. The amount of points has nothing to do with it.

Apparently FenderBumper is the only person who understands the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just call it quits on this one
Click to expand...

They get it. Many are just cranking on the old 'everyone complains' noise grinder.

nascar made winning more important at the expense of consistency. You and I agree that isn't such a good thing rather than just rah rahing nascar.inc
 
KevinWI said:
How many ties were there under the old points system (a la Stewart-Edwards 2011)?
Click to expand...

In theory, yeah, it might lead to a closer two driver battle because of the Chase. But it also eliminates every driver who has a bad run or two. They wanted to reward winning when all they did was reward consistency. The result is that you will rarely see more than two drivers with a chance to win it going into the final couple races. That is the exact opposite of what the Chase was designed to accomplish.
 
TooSweet said:
In theory, yeah, it might lead to a closer two driver battle because of the Chase. But it also eliminates every driver who has a bad run or two. They wanted to reward winning when all they did was reward consistency. The result is that you will rarely see more than two drivers with a chance to win it going into the final couple races. That is the exact opposite of what the Chase was designed to accomplish.
Click to expand...
I disagree there, I think it's exactly what NASCAR wanted. They have the big field of 12 (or 13 guys) going into the "playoffs" and by the end they have their two contenders facing off like it was the Super Bowl or World Series. Just look at all the press Johnson vs. Kenseth has gotten the past few weeks.
 
KevinWI said:
I disagree there, I think it's exactly what NASCAR wanted. They have the big field of 12 (or 13 guys) going into the "playoffs" and by the end they have their two contenders facing off like it was the Super Bowl or World Series. Just look at all the press Johnson vs. Kenseth has gotten the past few weeks.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just feel that people nowadays look at the points differences and think that today's Nascar breeds closer results than in the past, when most don't realize that a 35 point lead 10 years ago is only 7 positions on the track.

The biggest issue I have, like I said earlier, is that it is no longer tiered. I think there's a big difference between 1st and 6th, or 3rd and 10th. Does any fan really care about the difference between 35th and 40th? I don't think so, and the points should reflect that IMO.

I don't follow IndyCar so I could be wrong, but I seem to remember them using a point system where only the top 12 or so drivers received any points at all.
 
TooSweet said:
I don't follow IndyCar so I could be wrong, but I seem to remember them using a point system where only the top 12 or so drivers received any points at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in the old days CART used 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 and nobody after 12th place got points. IndyCar's current point system was inherited from the IRL and is very similar to NASCAR's old point system. Everybody gets some points even for last place.
 
KevinWI said:
IndyCar's current point system was inherited from the IRL and is very similar to NASCAR's old point system. Everybody gets some points even for last place.
Click to expand...

And that's the way I think it should be. The scoring scale needs to be weighed so that it favors the winner and top finishers, yet doesn't punish the guys at the back so severely.

At this point I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining though. It could always be worse
 
TooSweet said:
And that's the way I think it should be. The scoring scale needs to be weighed so that it favors the winner and top finishers, yet doesn't punish the guys at the back so severely.

At this point I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining though. It could always be worse
Click to expand...
You're fighting the good fight. F1 and IndyCar both have differing point increments as you go further down the finishing order. It works well for them.
 
TooSweet said:
In the end, what difference does it make? Does it really matter if it's 34 or 340? Nobody remembers or even cares how many points a driver gets; they are remembered for where they finish in the standings.
Click to expand...
image.jpg
 
So, how sad is it that when I saw the title of this thread, I expected a NASCAR.com or jayski.com link?
 
I tried to read through this thread but all I came up with was :confused:.
 
Imo both point sytems are good. One makes it a bit easier to catch up, the other is more simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom