Provisionals and guaranteed spots

Matthew2470

Matthew2470

It's not that serious
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,469
Points
643
Location
Mason, MI
"Let the fastest cars race!" seems to be the prevailing thought (although IMO very short sighted) by many NASCAR fans.

But would having a NASCAR superstar miss a race because of a qualifying incident be better than allowing a start and park to make the race?

Personally I'd rather see the superstar race the entire race rather than some S&P guy go out, run 10 laps then collect a check.

Thoughts?
 
The 'superstars' are all but guaranteed of being in the race under the new rules as well. We will not be seeing their haulers pull out of the facility on Friday afternoons after qualifying is complete.
 
I hope dpk doesn't get pissed when he see's this. ;)

I agree. The teams that race every week should do just that. I like the idea of a payoff, because the S&P should be compensated for lost purse money.
 
FenderBumper said:
The teams that race every week should do just that. I like the idea of a payoff, because the S&P should be compensated for lost purse money.
Click to expand...
In the extremely unlikely event that a 'superstar' doesn't make a race by time or provisional you can bet a S&P will be well compensated.
 
With the unlimited provisionals that are now going to be guaranteed, the new rule is still the top-35 rule disguised.
 
It's still a way of guaranteeing that the top names are participating each and every week but it is no longer called the top 35 rule. Instead it is advertised to the fans as being a 'Back to the Future' type rule. Genius.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
With the unlimited provisionals that are now going to be guaranteed, the new rule is still the top-35 rule disguised.
Click to expand...

There's 6 provisionals plus the past champions. I see no real reasonable scenerio that a top driver misses the race. Jeff Gordon has used one provisional start and that was in 2002. I don't think we'll see much of a difference between the Top 35 and the fastest 36 cars. I'd like to see some of the provisionals based on laps completed. Force the S&P's to run some laps.
 
Thegroundpounder99 said:
There's 6 provisionals plus the past champions. I see no real reasonable scenerio that a top driver misses the race. Jeff Gordon has used one provisional start and that was in 2002. I don't think we'll see much of a difference between the Top 35 and the fastest 36 cars. I'd like to see some of the provisionals based on laps completed. Force the S&P's to run some laps.
Click to expand...
The 6 provisionals are 6 provisional starting positions per race. The teams are going to be given unlimited provisionals to use throughout the year. They are no longer going to be earned like they once were long ago.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
With the unlimited provisionals that are now going to be guaranteed, the new rule is still the top-35 rule disguised.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said before. This is six of one or a half dozen of another.

When was the last time 8 of the top 35 wrecked during qualifying?
 
So why the outrage over the top 35 rule when this new system is essentially the same thing?
 
Matthew2470 said:
So why the outrage over the top 35 rule when this new system is essentially the same thing?
Click to expand...

I guess it cracks the door slightly open to a big start missing a race in the event of a Meteor shower hitting the track during qualifying. Under the top 35 rule, even a Meteor shower wouldn't have an impact (yuk) on the starting field.
 
There is one thing this rule will do and that is start the 36 fastest cars. With the old top 35 rule there was a remote chance that a car that was outside the top 35 and qualified 9th could be sent home.
 
Smoke14 said:
There is one thing this rule will do and that is start the 36 fastest cars. With the old top 35 rule there was a remote chance that a car that was outside the top 35 and qualified 9th could be sent home.
Click to expand...

Very good point. Faster cars getting booted was my biggest problem with the top 35 rule. But we may see more S&P's if racing for top 35 points means less than before.
 
If I remember correctly the whole top 35 thing started getting talked around after a Talladega race that seen the 28th and 29th place cars in points go home. Big stars were never in seirous danger but the top 35 was to make sure those mid pack teams running around 25th to 30th every week didn't have to worry.
 
I wouldn't want a S&P to bump out a superstar. But superstar are not competition rules, and the race itself should be bigger than an individual. If you can't appreciate the race without your precious slow driver, really please go away.

Take up pop music and be devoted to someone like Justin Beaver, or something else designed to protect p...worthlessness
 
wilson89 said:
If I remember correctly the whole top 35 thing started getting talked around after a Talladega race that seen the 28th and 29th place cars in points go home. Big stars were never in seirous danger but the top 35 was to make sure those mid pack teams running around 25th to 30th every week didn't have to worry.
Click to expand...

I am not following what you are saying. Why did 28th or 29th go home at Talladega?
 
If NASCAR is going to insist on a 43-car field, I'd like to see the top -40- cars in on speed, and three provisionals without regard to past champion status. What are the odds more than three full-time drivers will have problems in qualifying?

The past champion provisional has been a joke from Day One, and DW's abuse of it is why NASCAR put a limit on it. Now it's just an excuse for S&P teams to get Bill Elliott and Terry Labonte into the field for restrictor plate races.

I'd prefer to see the field cut to 40 (fastest 37 and 3 provs.) That will take care of a lot of the S&P issue.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'd prefer to see the field cut to 40 (fastest 37 and 3 provs.) That will take care of a lot of the S&P issue.
Click to expand...

I would prefer leaving room for new teams to enter the sport. A percentage of laps completed time preferance and must have pit crew rule would weed out S&P abusers.
 
I love this crap. Half the people thinking it's going to be a big change while the other half are reassuring everyone that there won't be any real change . Why in heck does there need to be any change at all ? I went to a 49ers game once (and I don't follow football ) I just wanted to see Joe Montana play before he retired . I got to see him play . It cost a lot of money , but it was worth it to see a hero of mine. Don't know if they won or lost , or even what team they played. If I went to a cup race and my driver wasn't in it , I would never go back.
 
ted@economy said:
If I went to a cup race and my driver wasn't in it , I would never go back.
Click to expand...

Some people are fans of particular people, some are fans of a sport as a whole. This is true of fans of all sports, and of most other forms of entertainment. The problem with being a fan of an individual is that, sooner or later, that person is no longer going to be in the race, on the field, in concert, or twirling around on the pole. It may be due to injury, age, loss of interest, or just having made enough money to retire, but he or she will eventually be gone.

If your driver made the field and crashed on lap 3, would you get up and leave? Me, I paid to see a race, not just Matt Kenseth. I don't even focus on him for the majority of the time I'm in the stands; even the best drivers will frequently just log laps. If my driver goes out, there's usually someone else doing something worth watching.

Personally, I encourage others to leave when their driver is out. It gets them out of the lot, down the road, and out of my way that much earlier.
 
ted@economy said:
If I went to a cup race and my driver wasn't in it , I would never go back.
Click to expand...
Next week I'll be in Martinsville. Will Dale Jr? I don't know. I'm going anyway.

Personally I don't get how people are missing the point so I'll try typing it bigger & bolder.

HAVE NO FEAR FANS. THE STARS WILL BE IN EACH AND EVERY RACE NEXT YEAR. THE NEW QUALIFYING RULE WILL NOT ALLOW FOR THE STARS TO BE SENT HOME ON FRIDAY. REST ASSURED.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Next week I'll be in Martinsville. Will Dale Jr? I don't know. I'm going anyway.

Personally I don't get how people are missing the point so I'll try typing it bigger & bolder.

HAVE NO FEAR FANS. THE STARS WILL BE IN EACH AND EVERY RACE NEXT YEAR. THE NEW QUALIFYING RULE WILL NOT ALLOW FOR THE STARS TO BE SENT HOME ON FRIDAY. REST ASSURED.
Click to expand...
^this
 
While I am resting assured ..I have no idea why Nascar did this . Change for the sake of change is STUPID. I know, lets have a seventh inning stretch in Nascar . And we'll all sing "Take Me Out To The Car Race!"
 
ted@economy said:
While I am resting assured ..I have no idea why Nascar did this . Change for the sake of change is STUPID. I know, lets have a seventh inning stretch in Nascar . And we'll all sing "Take Me Out To The Car Race!"
Click to expand...
I think it was their way to say that they were getting rid of the top 35 rule without actually doing it.
 
That's true enough but it doesn't have any bearing on the stars going home. Many of the smaller teams & S&P's will get their due when they qualify well.
 
FenderBumper said:
lol You're really stuck on that whole thing. I was quoting in resonse to tedeco saying it was change for the sake of change.....
Click to expand...
I can't tell unless you quote someone. And yes, I'm still stuck on it because people seem to have a hard time understanding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom