What Brian France Could Learn From the NFL, but Won't.

LewTheShoe said:
There are no absolute truths about it. There are only opinions, and they cover a wide range.

IMO, Nascar has *never* had a championship format designed to crown the most deserving team. The Latford points scale was an abomination that under-rewarded winning and encouraged a "coast and collect" points racing mentality. And as a result, the wrong guys won the crown multiple times.

The chase format from 2004-13 addressed some of the flaws, but made others worse, IMO. The points scale became even flatter than Latford, and the win bonus into the chase was a paltry three points. Both of these provisions should offend the sensibility of anyone who thinks winning is important.

The 2014-16 elimination style playoff almost totally divorced the regular season from the championship, and over-emphasized the importance of avoiding racing misfortune during the chase. While advancing through the playoff rounds was a stern test of driver and team excellence, this format ignored the regular season too much for me to embrace.

I believe that part of my resilience as a Nascar fan, despite the evolution of the sport over the 50 years I've been there, is that I never accepted in prior decades that Nascar was nearly perfect. The cars and the racing weren't. The administration of the sport wasn't. The media wasn't. The championship wasn't either. So many fans look back upon those times with such rose tinted glasses. There have been plenty of mistakes made throughout Nascar's history. But doing nothing to evolve the sport would have been an even bigger mistake, despite the opinions of keyboard warriors who think they have all the answers.
Click to expand...
Man, I miss those 'coast and collect' years. That's when this sport was in its prime.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Man, I miss those 'coast and collect' years. That's when this sport was in its prime.
Click to expand...
The sport was in its prime despite the coast and collect incentives, not because of them. And the subsequent decline of interest in Nascar is not attributable to the Chase as a primary cause. The suburban yuppies riding the bandwagon of "The Nascar Lifestyle" were never going to stick around for a lifetime. They moved on to graze in another pasture, as such cultural phenomena always do.
 
LewTheShoe said:
There are no absolute truths about it. There are only opinions, and they cover a wide range.

IMO, Nascar has *never* had a championship format designed to crown the most deserving team. The Latford points scale was an abomination that under-rewarded winning and encouraged a "coast and collect" points racing mentality. And as a result, the wrong guys won the crown multiple times.

The chase format from 2004-13 addressed some of the flaws, but made others worse, IMO. The points scale became even flatter than Latford, and the win bonus into the chase was a paltry three points. Both of these provisions should offend the sensibility of anyone who thinks winning is important.

The 2014-16 elimination style playoff almost totally divorced the regular season from the championship, and over-emphasized the importance of avoiding racing misfortune during the chase. While advancing through the playoff rounds was a stern test of driver and team excellence, this format ignored the regular season too much for me to embrace.

I believe that part of my resilience as a Nascar fan, despite the evolution of the sport over the 50 years I've been there, is that I never accepted in prior decades that Nascar was nearly perfect. The cars and the racing weren't. The administration of the sport wasn't. The media wasn't. The championship wasn't either. So many fans look back upon those times with such rose tinted glasses. There have been plenty of mistakes made throughout Nascar's history. But doing nothing to evolve the sport would have been an even bigger mistake, despite the opinions of keyboard warriors who think they have all the answers.
Click to expand...

I am interested in seeing how the changes play out and how the risk versus reward thing will work. Will a guy with an 8th place car be happy to sit in 8th and move on to the next race or will he risk wrecking to gain a spot or 2? Will the end of races feature more wrecks and restarts as guys push too hard? How will the new rules regarding damaged cars play into things?
 
LewTheShoe said:
The sport was in its prime despite the coast and collect incentives, not because of them. And the subsequent decline of interest in Nascar is not attributable to the Chase as a primary cause. The suburban yuppies riding the bandwagon of "The Nascar Lifestyle" were never going to stick around for a lifetime. They moved on to graze in another pasture, as such cultural phenomena always do.
Click to expand...

I don't think the chase had much impact on the Yuppies leaving but it was the death knell for many longtime supporters and if you ask a former Nascar fan why they left you will get a variety of answers but a common theme always seems to the the chase. I do want to be clear in saying that I don't think scrapping the chase would improve Nascar's fortunes at this point as young people are not eschewing the series because of it.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I don't think the chase had much impact on the Yuppies leaving but it was the death knell for many longtime supporters and if you ask a former Nascar fan why they left you will get a variety of answers but a common theme always seems to the the chase. I do want to be clear in saying that I don't think scrapping the chase would improve Nascar's fortunes at this point as young people are not eschewing the series because of it.
Click to expand...
Most of the people I know that have left Nascar are not inclined to blame it on Nascar. They generally attribute it to changes in their own life. I believe incessant complaining about Nascar is somewhat of a social media phenomenon, including Twitter, Facebook, forums such as R-F, etc.

I'm sure there are people like you describe, but the numbers are overblown IMO. There are other people who have been intrigued by the chase and find it attractive.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I am interested in seeing how the changes play out and how the risk versus reward thing will work. Will a guy with an 8th place car be happy to sit in 8th and move on to the next race or will he risk wrecking to gain a spot or 2? Will the end of races feature more wrecks and restarts as guys push too hard? How will the new rules regarding damaged cars play into things?
Click to expand...
These are interesting questions. We'll have to wait a while to know. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that over a period of time - such as 26 races - stage points will be earned in a similar pattern to the final end-of-race points. If that happens, the main effect of stage points will be to make the points totals more progressive. I hope so because the points scale is too flat IMO.

Obviously, stage points will cause anomalies at times. It will probably be in the playoffs because regular season points are de-emphasized. How will I feel when two guys are in contention to advance to the final four on points, and one makes it via stage points? I don't know.

Can you imagine the uproar if Dale Jr gets eliminated from the final four by not getting enough stage points at Phoenix?
 
I guess, technically speaking, you could finish second in all three of the third round of the playoffs and be eliminated by three winners and a guy getting in on bonus points. How would that be perceived?
 
^ I'd probably be pissed off if the guy that was eliminated was my favorite driver, but OK with it if my guy was the beneficiary of the stage points... LOL.
 
"The NFL has rules changes too" is not a response to the topic of the thread. NASCAR's defenders won't find valid cover using other professional sports, none of which have obsessively changed the actual format of their standings, championships and games / events in the past 15 years to orchestrate and contrive close finishes.

"The fans asked for it" justification strikes me as absurd. One can find anecdotal evidence of some people complaining about anything and everything.

"We did this all for you. You said you wanted it, and we've delivered. Now let us explain to you what it is you wanted. Here's an FAQ so that you can start to understand what it is you have been demanding."

Many people who watch NBA games will remark that the first three quarters often feel meaningless. They are ignorant and wrong, but this is a common perception. Some will even say that you only need to tune into the last five minutes of a game, everything else is irrelevant. If the NBA decided this was a 'problem' that needed 'fixing' and started giving out partial wins in the season standings to the leader at end of the first quarter and half time, this would also be a radical and desperate move.

These are radical changes, even if they are being sold under the cloak of keeping the races at the same distance. The radical part is the stage points for the top 10 at roughly the 1/4 and 1/2 marks. It is bizarre to me that I can't find anyone else, media or fans, running some numbers to figure out the impact of these. Once you do, you'll start to see that in many ways the first half of the race has been made more important than the second half or finish. I don't think that was the intention. I think it's a basic mathematical error, the same kind of rash thinking that led to last year's All Star format and other previous live beta tests that multiple drivers championed until it played out disastrously due to unintended consequences and confusion.

Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans. A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half. If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.

Winning still trumps everything in this format, but 39 of 40 drivers don't win every week, and they will be scored using this points scheme. Drivers will advance into the playoffs and through the playoffs on points. I can sit here all day and detail a dozen other baffling scenarios about how these points change the very meaning of what a 400 or 500 mile race is. I believe once fans and even drivers and teams watch this play out, there will be mass head scratching and immediate calls for change. Again.
 
Last edited:
gnomesayin said:
"The NFL has rules changes too" is not a response to the topic of the thread. NASCAR's defenders won't find valid cover using other professional sports, none of which have obsessively changed the actual format of their standings, championships and games / events in the past 15 years to orchestrate and contrive close finishes.

"The fans asked for it" justification strikes me as absurd. One can find anecdotal evidence of some people complaining about anything and everything.

"We did this all for you. You said you wanted it, and we've delivered. Now let us explain to you what it is you wanted. Here's an FAQ so that you can start to understand what it is you have been demanding."

Many people who watch NBA games will remark that the first three quarters often feel meaningless. They are ignorant and wrong, but this is a common perception. Some will even say that you only need to tune into the last five minutes of a game, everything else is irrelevant. If the NBA decided this was a 'problem' that needed 'fixing' and started giving out partial wins in the season standings to the leader at end of the first quarter and half time, this would also be a radical and desperate move.

These are radical changes, even if they are being sold under the cloak of keeping the races at the same distance. The radical part is the stage points for the top 10 at roughly the 1/4 and 1/2 marks. It is bizarre to me that I can't find anyone else, media or fans, running some numbers to figure out the impact of these. Once you do, you'll start to see that in many ways the first half of the race has been made more important than the second half or finish. I don't think that was the intention. I think it's a basic mathematical error, the same kind of rash thinking that led to last year's All Star format and other previous live beta tests that multiple drivers championed until it played out disastrously due to unintended consequences and confusion.

Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans. A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half. If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.

Winning still trumps everything in this format, but 39 of 40 drivers don't win every week, and they will be scored using this points scheme. Drivers will advance into the playoffs and through the playoffs on points. I can sit here all day and detail a dozen other baffling scenarios about how these points change the very meaning of what a 400 or 500 mile race is. I believe once fans and even drivers and teams watch this play out, there will be mass head scratching and immediate calls for change. Again.
Click to expand...

Interesting points. I was too lazy to go through the hypothetical math. The great irony is if NASCAR gets another "Matt Kenseth" season (not taking away anything from Matt (well-deserved championship)) and it puts the sport back where it was before The Chase was implemented. Ha!
 
gnomesayin said:
"The NFL has rules changes too" is not a response to the topic of the thread. NASCAR's defenders won't find valid cover using other professional sports, none of which have obsessively changed the actual format of their standings, championships and games / events in the past 15 years to orchestrate and contrive close finishes.

"The fans asked for it" justification strikes me as absurd. One can find anecdotal evidence of some people complaining about anything and everything.

"We did this all for you. You said you wanted it, and we've delivered. Now let us explain to you what it is you wanted. Here's an FAQ so that you can start to understand what it is you have been demanding."

Many people who watch NBA games will remark that the first three quarters often feel meaningless. They are ignorant and wrong, but this is a common perception. Some will even say that you only need to tune into the last five minutes of a game, everything else is irrelevant. If the NBA decided this was a 'problem' that needed 'fixing' and started giving out partial wins in the season standings to the leader at end of the first quarter and half time, this would also be a radical and desperate move.

These are radical changes, even if they are being sold under the cloak of keeping the races at the same distance. The radical part is the stage points for the top 10 at roughly the 1/4 and 1/2 marks. It is bizarre to me that I can't find anyone else, media or fans, running some numbers to figure out the impact of these. Once you do, you'll start to see that in many ways the first half of the race has been made more important than the second half or finish. I don't think that was the intention. I think it's a basic mathematical error, the same kind of rash thinking that led to last year's All Star format and other previous live beta tests that multiple drivers championed until it played out disastrously due to unintended consequences and confusion.

Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans. A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half. If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.

Winning still trumps everything in this format, but 39 of 40 drivers don't win every week, and they will be scored using this points scheme. Drivers will advance into the playoffs and through the playoffs on points. I can sit here all day and detail a dozen other baffling scenarios about how these points change the very meaning of what a 400 or 500 mile race is. I believe once fans and even drivers and teams watch this play out, there will be mass head scratching and immediate calls for change. Again.
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone would put pen to paper and do what you did as you have detailed a scenario that could happen many, many times. As I have said before on numerous occasions Nascar is the king of unintended consequences and never seem to be able to think anything through to its logical conclusion. One thing the NHL does is actually road test changes before they are made and they use minor league and exhibition games to give the rules a shake down and see what they look like off a sheet of paper. IDK what Nascar's decision processes are when making changes but it sounds like the first order of business it to tap the keg.
 
NJJammer said:
Interesting points. I was too lazy to go through the hypothetical math. The great irony is if NASCAR gets another "Matt Kenseth" season (not taking away anything from Matt (well-deserved championship)) and it puts the sport back where it was before The Chase was implemented. Ha!
Click to expand...
Nearly had it with Newman the first year the chase bracket system was announced. Oh how I wish he'd won.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Nearly had it with Newman the first year the chase bracket system was announced. Oh how I wish he'd won.
Click to expand...

Great point. I am sure Brian and the networks were actively rooting against Newman. I was hoping Smoke would've went on a run this past "postseason" and highlighted the absurdity of the system like Kyle Busch did the previous year.
 
NJJammer said:
Great point. I am sure Brian and the networks were actively rooting against Newman. I was hoping Smoke would've went on a run this past "postseason" and highlighted the absurdity of the system like Kyle Busch did the previous year.
Click to expand...
Johnson & Busch winning the championships the last 2 years is absurd.
 
LewTheShoe said:
There are no absolute truths about it. There are only opinions, and they cover a wide range.

IMO, Nascar has *never* had a championship format designed to crown the most deserving team. The Latford points scale was an abomination that under-rewarded winning and encouraged a "coast and collect" points racing mentality. And as a result, the wrong guys won the crown multiple times.

The chase format from 2004-13 addressed some of the flaws, but made others worse, IMO. The points scale became even flatter than Latford, and the win bonus into the chase was a paltry three points. Both of these provisions should offend the sensibility of anyone who thinks winning is important.

The 2014-16 elimination style playoff almost totally divorced the regular season from the championship, and over-emphasized the importance of avoiding racing misfortune during the chase. While advancing through the playoff rounds was a stern test of driver and team excellence, this format ignored the regular season too much for me to embrace.

I believe that part of my resilience as a Nascar fan, despite the evolution of the sport over the 50 years I've been there, is that I never accepted in prior decades that Nascar was nearly perfect. The cars and the racing weren't. The administration of the sport wasn't. The media wasn't. The championship wasn't either. So many fans look back upon those times with such rose tinted glasses. There have been plenty of mistakes made throughout Nascar's history. But doing nothing to evolve the sport would have been an even bigger mistake, despite the opinions of keyboard warriors who think they have all the answers.
Click to expand...

It's not really in line with where I'm at, but this is an excellent post and is worth thinking about.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Posted this in 2014. Off by 1 year, still accurate.
Click to expand...

Good call. And two to three years from now, NASCAR will change the format again.

I will be unbelievably SHOCKED and will GLADLY eat my words if this new playoff and points system leads to an increase in ratings, attendance or both. I want this sport I love to continue on and even grow but it is lost in a tempest right now and Brian France, the captain, is clueless how to deliver this ship to port. The main sail is shredded, the rudder is gone and the ship is taking on water. "Everything is all right" Brian yells to the crew over the gale force winds. "Trust me" he proclaims with glassy eyes and breath infused with the finest Scotch..."I know what I'm doing..."
 
Revman said:
Oreovicz is an open wheel guy if I am not mistaken.....for the purposes of context.
Click to expand...

Well that makes sense now. If he had to make his living from writing about Nascar he would have written like a lacky for Pravda.
 
gnomesayin said:
Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans. A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half. If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I thought the points for finishing in the top 10 of a segment didn't count towards the total for the race, but only towards the "bonus" they can use for the playoffs? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2 Sweet said:
I thought the points for finishing in the top 10 of a segment didn't count towards the total for the race, but only towards the "bonus" they can use for the playoffs? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

There are regular points issued for the top ten in each stage (10 points to the leader down to 1 point for 10th place) and a single bonus playoff point for the stage winner.

If a driver runs second for the first half of the race, he'll have such a gap built up over everyone who didn't run in the top 10 early (18 points) that he'll be able to finish 18 positions behind those drivers and still score as many points for the event. It's really something they've devised here.
 
gnomesayin said:
There are regular points issued for the top ten in each stage (10 points to the leader down to 1 point for 10th place) and a single bonus playoff point for the stage winner.

If a driver runs second for the first half of the race, he'll have such a gap built up over everyone who didn't run in the top 10 early (18 points) that he'll be able to finish 18 positions behind those drivers and still score as many points for the event. It's really something they've devised here.
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah you're right. Not sure what I was thinking.

Yeah I see your point, that's pretty lame that the 17th place driver would earn more than the guy who finishes 3rd. To fix this, I wish the "final" points for each race should be higher. Instead of 40-35-34-33-etc, it should be 60-55-54-53-etc. Or even better, 60-55-52-50-49-48-47-etc (because weighted points scales are better IMO)
 
2 Sweet said:
Ah, yeah you're right. Not sure what I was thinking.

Yeah I see your point, that's pretty lame that the 17th place driver would earn more than the guy who finishes 3rd. To fix this, I wish the "final" points for each race should be higher. Instead of 40-35-34-33-etc, it should be 60-55-54-53-etc. Or even better, 60-55-52-50-49-48-47-etc (because weighted points scales are better IMO)
Click to expand...

The peculiarity I'm calling attention to would be substantially lessened if they only gave out the top ten points at halfway. That wouldn't throw things so askew and make the first half of the race more lucrative than the second half. They are making a math error worthy of kids on a sandlot trying to figure out how to score their pickup game. Cue the tweaks in 2019 that promise to restore the importance of race finishes.
 
Greg said:
Well that makes sense now. If he had to make his living from writing about Nascar he would have written like a lacky for Pravda.
Click to expand...

Great point.
 
gnomesayin said:
The peculiarity I'm calling attention to would be substantially lessened if they only gave out the top ten points at halfway. That wouldn't throw things so askew and make the first half of the race more lucrative than the second half. They are making a math error worthy of kids on a sandlot trying to figure out how to score their pickup game. Cue the tweaks in 2019 that promise to restore the importance of race finishes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised. So what I don't understand is how the guys making the rules never seem to think this stuff through? Some dopes on a racing forum can spot the flaws so quickly, but they can't? No wonder they are constantly making changes. They are like a bunch of IT guys who don't beta test anything.
 
2 Sweet said:
I wouldn't be surprised. So what I don't understand is how the guys making the rules never seem to think this stuff through? Some dopes on a racing forum can spot the flaws so quickly, but they can't? No wonder they are constantly making changes. They are like a bunch of IT guys who don't beta test anything.
Click to expand...

We're not drinking Scotch. Perhaps some vodka in my case.
 
gnomesayin said:
"The fans asked for it" justification strikes me as absurd. One can find anecdotal evidence of some people complaining about anything and everything.

"We did this all for you. You said you wanted it, and we've delivered. Now let us explain to you what it is you wanted. Here's an FAQ so that you can start to understand what it is you have been demanding."

Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans.

A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half.

If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

^^^^^
This . . . . . pretty much says it all for me.

Introducing the Chase was NASCAR's attempt at fixing something that wasn't really broke and in the process they done broke it good.

Since then they've been trying to fix what they broke, only to make things worse every time.

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day.
 
pjmolo said:
^^^^^
This . . . . . pretty much says it all for me.

Introducing the Chase was NASCAR's attempt at fixing something that wasn't really broke and in the process they done broke it good.

Since then they've been trying to fix what they broke, only to make things worse every time.

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day.
Click to expand...
Question: What's the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS?

Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist.

And so it is with Nascar fans who hate the chase... Nothing is negotiable except GET RID OF THE CHASE . Do you not see that the new playoff format is a very big step toward exactly what you asked for? It includes greater rewards for winning, and every race now counts in the championship. And yet you are claiming this format is worse than last year's format.

Anyone who says, "The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day" would prefer the new format to the prior one if they would think it through, IMO.

If your ideal solution (abolish the chase and overhaul the points scale) is not achievable for various reasons, please explain why you wouldn't accept greater rewards for winning and every race counts.
 
Last edited:
LewTheShoe said:
Question: What's the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS?

Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist.

And so it is with Nascar fans who hate the chase... Nothing is negotiable except GET RID OF THE CHASE . Do you not see that the new playoff format is a very big step toward exactly what you asked for? It includes greater rewards for winning, and every race now counts in the championship. And yet you are claiming this format is worse than last year's format.

Anyone who says, "The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day" would prefer the new format to the prior one if they would think it through, IMO.

If your ideal solution (abolish the chase and overhaul the points scale) is not achievable for various reasons, please explain why you wouldn't accept greater rewards for winning and every race counts.
Click to expand...
I think this year's format is better than the 2014-16 abomination where you could win in February and coast until September and Chase bonus points didn't count beyond Dover, but it's still a little messy. I'm not for abolishing the chase altogether, I'm just not a fan of the post-2013 versions of it. I preferred simply resetting them after Richmond, and I also think 16 drivers is WAAAYYY too many to include in the chase. 10-12 drivers was much better, as there was actually some suspense late in the regular season as to who would make it in and who wouldn't. It was a lot more entertaining seeing Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart fighting for the last chase spot than seeing Aric Almirola and Paul Menard fighting for it.
 
gnomesayin said:
"The NFL has rules changes too" is not a response to the topic of the thread. NASCAR's defenders won't find valid cover using other professional sports, none of which have obsessively changed the actual format of their standings, championships and games / events in the past 15 years to orchestrate and contrive close finishes.

"The fans asked for it" justification strikes me as absurd. One can find anecdotal evidence of some people complaining about anything and everything.

"We did this all for you. You said you wanted it, and we've delivered. Now let us explain to you what it is you wanted. Here's an FAQ so that you can start to understand what it is you have been demanding."

Many people who watch NBA games will remark that the first three quarters often feel meaningless. They are ignorant and wrong, but this is a common perception. Some will even say that you only need to tune into the last five minutes of a game, everything else is irrelevant. If the NBA decided this was a 'problem' that needed 'fixing' and started giving out partial wins in the season standings to the leader at end of the first quarter and half time, this would also be a radical and desperate move.

These are radical changes, even if they are being sold under the cloak of keeping the races at the same distance. The radical part is the stage points for the top 10 at roughly the 1/4 and 1/2 marks. It is bizarre to me that I can't find anyone else, media or fans, running some numbers to figure out the impact of these. Once you do, you'll start to see that in many ways the first half of the race has been made more important than the second half or finish. I don't think that was the intention. I think it's a basic mathematical error, the same kind of rash thinking that led to last year's All Star format and other previous live beta tests that multiple drivers championed until it played out disastrously due to unintended consequences and confusion.

Here's what I'm talking about, and this is what I'd genuinely like to get honest reactions from the posters around here who I respect as knowledgeable racing fans. A driver who finishes 2nd in the first stage (9 points), 4th in the second stage (7 points), and finishes the race in 17th (20 points) will now score more points (36 total) than a driver forced to start at the back due to an engine change and climbs to 16th in stage one (0 points), 11th in stage two (0 points), and finishes the race in 3rd (34 total). The 17th place driver outscores the 3rd place driver because he had a better first half. If that is not a radical change, I don't know what is.

Winning still trumps everything in this format, but 39 of 40 drivers don't win every week, and they will be scored using this points scheme. Drivers will advance into the playoffs and through the playoffs on points. I can sit here all day and detail a dozen other baffling scenarios about how these points change the very meaning of what a 400 or 500 mile race is. I believe once fans and even drivers and teams watch this play out, there will be mass head scratching and immediate calls for change. Again.
Click to expand...
This is a thought provoking post. At first blush I think it is overly concerned with points, but need to see how the segment concept plays out over the full year.

Gnomesayin, your first complaint is misplaced in 2017. These format changes are not "to orchestrate and contrive close finishes." You could have said that in 2014, but not now. The format changes will not affect the finishing order of individual races to any major degree. And concerning the championship, the changes are a sizable step away from the "everyone is tied" mentality of 2014-16. Larger win bonus, more progressive points scale, rewards for full season excellence... A major step toward a meritocracy championship rather than a contrived close finish. We'll still have the final four tied at Homestead, but better odds that they will be the most deserving four based on full year performance.

I'm in favor of rules stability, but not when that means being married to bad rules such as the 2014-16 chase.

Secondly, I feel pretty sure that the math of the stage points was not lost on the diverse group of stakeholders who initiated the changes. Drivers, teams, track owners, Steve O'Donnell for Nascar, broadcast guys. Surely someone from that group could see that stage points will often mean a lower finisher gets more points than a higher finisher. The question is, is that bad?

The most important objectives in Nascar are winning races and winning championships. Points only matter as a way to win a championship. For the most part, regular season points have limited value because "win and you're in." I realize a couple extra bonus points from the post-Richmond standings are useful. I realize it's possible for a non-winner to make the playoffs too, but very rarely will a non-winner advance to the final four. Also, there are 26 races with 52 opportunities for stage points, so the ups and downs tend to average out. So I think points anomalies in the regular season are much ado about nothing (not nothing, but not major).

During the postseason, points racing occurs in 3-race rounds, so points anomalies have more impact. Is it fundamentally unfair or otherwise undesirable for stage points to enter the equation? I'll have an opinion by Thanksgiving. But I feel very sure that the integrity and legitimacy of the championship has been improved on a net bottom line basis.
 
LewTheShoe said:
And so it is with Nascar fans who hate the chase... Nothing is negotiable except GET RID OF THE CHASE . Do you not see that the new playoff format is a very big step toward exactly what you asked for? It includes greater rewards for winning, and every race now counts in the championship. And yet you are claiming this format is worse than last year's format.

Anyone who says, "The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day" would prefer the new format to the prior one if they would think it through, IMO.

If your ideal solution (abolish the chase and overhaul the points scale) is not achievable for various reasons, please explain why you wouldn't accept greater rewards for winning and every race counts.
Click to expand...

Being the simpleton that I am, I'll try to keep it simple in describing something that occurred last season.

While I was watching the Darlington race, a mid-20's friend of my son was over and they both sat down to watch the race with me for a while before going out.

My son's friend, who's a sports enthusiast but not a racing fan, casually asked me how the NASCAR season champion was determined.

In about 10 - 15 seconds I was able to explain the pre-Chase system to him.

Then, after me spending several minutes trying to explain last year's Chase system with all the contrivances of the elimination format, he started laughing and simply said, "Nevermind. It's not that important."

I can't begin to imagine trying to explain to someone what's going into effect this year.

Granted, the intricacies of the new system may very well make it more "rewarding" than the previous system but it remains way more complicated than it needs to be, both to old-timers like me and to the kids that we're hoping will become the fans of the future.
 
pjmolo said:
Being the simpleton that I am, I'll try to keep it simple in describing something that occurred last season.

While I was watching the Darlington race, a mid-20's friend of my son was over and they both sat down to watch the race with me for a while before going out.

My son's friend, who's a sports enthusiast but not a racing fan, casually asked me how the NASCAR season champion was determined.

In about 10 - 15 seconds I was able to explain the pre-Chase system to him.

Then, after me spending several minutes trying to explain last year's Chase system with all the contrivances of the elimination format, he started laughing and simply said, "Nevermind. It's not that important."

I can't begin to imagine trying to explain to someone what's going into effect this year.
Click to expand...

I've had similar conversations. I eventually had to describe the Chase grid as similar to the March Madness grid with rounds and eliminations. But with the potential for Duke, who is already eliminated, to do something that eliminates Kentucky or UConn when they're playing for a title.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I was hoping someone would put pen to paper and do what you did as you have detailed a scenario that could happen many, many times. As I have said before on numerous occasions Nascar is the king of unintended consequences and never seem to be able to think anything through to its logical conclusion. One thing the NHL does is actually road test changes before they are made and they use minor league and exhibition games to give the rules a shake down and see what they look like off a sheet of paper. IDK what Nascar's decision processes are when making changes but it sounds like the first order of business it to tap the keg.
Click to expand...

You would think with all the racing video games out there, something like rule changes or points format changes would be easy to replicate to get an idea of how a season would play out. Obviously, actual physical changes to the cars would be different.
 
2 Sweet said:
Yeah I see your point, that's pretty lame that the 17th place driver would earn more than the guy who finishes 3rd. To fix this, I wish the "final" points for each race should be higher. Instead of 40-35-34-33-etc, it should be 60-55-54-53-etc. Or even better, 60-55-52-50-49-48-47-etc (because weighted points scales are better IMO)
Click to expand...

The problem is that when you give a driver two opportunities to gain points on his competitors in the first half of the race, it doesn't matter how much greater the reward at the end of the race is. The points scale is still flat. The end of the race is only a single opportunity to gain or lose points vs. other drivers.

Let's say the stage points remain the same, but winning a race is now worth 500 points, second is worth 495, and so on. 10 points for a stage vs. 500 points for the race. It makes no difference unless you get rid of the flat points scale.

Driver A is 2nd for stage one (9 points), third for stage two (8 points), but fades in the second half and finishes 15th (482 points). Total is 499.

Driver B is 19th for stage one (0 points), ninth for stage two (2 points), and finishes 2nd (495 points). Total is 497.

The 15th place driver still beats the 2nd place driver.
 
gnomesayin said:
The problem is that when you give a driver two opportunities to gain points on his competitors in the first half of the race, it doesn't matter how much greater the reward at the end of the race is. The points scale is still flat. The end of the race is only a single opportunity to gain or lose points vs. other drivers.

Let's say the stage points remain the same, but winning a race is now worth 500 points, second is worth 495, and so on. 10 points for a stage vs. 500 points for the race. It makes no difference unless you get rid of the flat points scale.

Driver A is 2nd for stage one (9 points), third for stage two (8 points), but fades in the second half and finishes 15th (482 points). Total is 499.

Driver B is 19th for stage one (0 points), ninth for stage two (2 points), and finishes 2nd (495 points). Total is 497.

The 15th place driver still beats the 2nd place driver.
Click to expand...

Great point.

I'm glad you've put some thought into this, because clearly I haven't :D

I'm still not sure how I feel about the new system. It has its positives and negatives, and time will tell. But at face value, the scenario you mentioned certainly supports the theory that it might be a radical change for the worse. I'm still hopeful that the positives will outweigh the negatives, and regardless of it's flaws I still think it's an improvement over last year's format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom