Starting Fields

[HardScrabble]

Several times over the weekend reference was made to the size of the starting field at Bristol. The now magic number of 43 starters has no functional basis I am aware of, just a number that has evolved over time. And relatively recently at that.

The point was made that 43 cars was/is simply too many for tracks such as Bristol, I suppose that one would include Martinsville in this as well, perhaps Richmond. Certainly a case could be made either way, so it comes down to personal observation.

Put me on the side of reducing the field at both Bristol and Martinsville. I realize that this might play havoc with some of the teams making the field, but thems the breaks. In order to do this the number of provisional starters would have to be reduced as well. Just to throw a number out there, let's say 33 starters with maybe 3 provisionals.

 

[stridsberry]

If they were to reduce the field, they would have to change the point system too, to have it be reflective of how many cars start the race. Something like in a 36 car field like one point for last, increasing by margins of one up to 36 points for first, plus a 4 point bonus for winning. Then maybe they could triple it for weight, or something. But the current point system is unfair for if the field sizes were that drastically different. If a driver beats a 43 car field, he should recieve more points than if he beats a 36-car field.

 

[DJFan]

I disagree with changing the size of the field at all. I think it adds another level of strategy to the short track races and I am a big fan of strategy. Qualify well and the worries of being lapped early are a non issue. Drive defensively once lapping has begun and lapped cars are a non issue. Darlington is popular with the drivers because the track adds another dimension with it's challenging configuration. The short tracks are popular with the drivers because the # of competitors adds another dimension. Bristol and Martinsville (Richmond as well) forces the drivers to drive a race differently that those cookie cutter tracks and thats what I like to see. Just different strokes for different folks and thats okay!

Kel

 

[HardScrabble]

Don't know that I see any reason to revamp the points system. Unless of course you want to make a general change to affect all tracks.

The current points system has been in effect since the mid 70's. Starting fields of 43 cars did not come into existence at all tracks until about 1997. The base of reducing the points by 5;4;3 depending on finishing position would be as valid with 30 cars as it would be with 50 or whatever. It was done that way for many many more years than it has been with a set field of 43 at all tracks.

 

[stridsberry]

Okay, HS, here's my basic beef. Drivers that fail to qualify don't recieve any points, and maybe they shouldn't. And the point system doesn't take alternate car counts into effect. So if you have a 43-car field, the last-place finisher recieves 34 more points than the non-qualifiers, but in a 36-car field, the last place finisher recieves 55 more points than the non-qualifiers. I personally don't think that that's fair. Now that I've thought about it some, I think that the simplest thing to do is to award driver points to all the non-qualifiers, but have it be 15-20 points less than the last-place finisher, regardless of field size. That's the fairest thing I can think of right now.

 

[Dinoforthe3]

How about taking the remaining points not awarded and dividing them equally among those that did not qualify. For example, if the field is 36 cars, then take the points that would normally be given to position 37,38-43, add them up and divide by all cars. This would allow for overall same number of points given per race, less point awarded to those who do not qualify, allow regular teams to still earn points.

I do not think Nascar would even consider this. With a projected only 3 provisionals you could have some regular marketing stars not make the race. For example in this years race only 3 of the following 6 would have made the race: Rudd, Park, Robby, Kenseth, DJ, mears. Those are some big name teams that would have been rather upset. (although Robby probably should have missed the race, and I'm and RCR, DEI fan).

I say leave it as is. Rubbin's Racin. Adds strategy.

 

[Mopardh9]

Leave it the way it is, these guys need a race like Bristol to get the blood flowing, much strategy is involved and makes it really interesting. I say add another 1 or 2 short tracks to the schedule and get rid of the road tracks, these are way too cost prohibitive. I like the 43 car fields let the teams figure out what they need to do to make the race and qualify better, that is what raing is all about!!