what is the primary purpose of having a champion?

[racerx11]

Originally posted by DE_Wrangler_2@Jul 21 2004, 07:19 PM
You're probably right Splunge about who will really be the contenders for the title. The drivers who have done well all season during the 26 race lead up will most likely continue to do so for the final 10 races. Yeah there is a chance that the 10th place driver (or even further back) could really crank it up and win 8 of the 10 and absolutely annihilate the top 3 or 4 drivers that dominated all season long......not really likely but it could happen. And I think that's what most are screaming bloody murder about...........nothing but a maybe or could happen. They are negative now and they will be negative all through the last part of the season. I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. One thing I feel pretty sure will not happen this year (and as long as this points system is in place) is the maddening points racing by the leader once he gets a comfortable lead. A few posters have stated that should the 10th place driver win he would not deserve the true title. Yet those same few cheer for a driver to get his 400 point lead and then circles the track for the last 6 or so races not even trying to win........only place high enough to protect his lead. Now who deserves the true title with that comparison? I know the points racing has, in fact, happened.........many times over the years. I don't know that the 10th place driver will "steal" (or receive a "gift") the Championship. In fact if the 10th place driver can come on and win the title in the final 10 races I think he deserves more praise than the driver who coasted to victory.

I'd have to say I agree with you on this one DE.

 

[Lap3Forever]

what else can it be? "rewarding the team with the best season-long performance"

 

[racefan against nascare]

about the only pro-change view i agree with is that something should have been done to increase racing for wins...i think that would have been better solved by giving more money for winning and less for a championship.

some of the other things i read were off-base...i'm not trying to say it's wrong to have your opinion differ from mine, but the opinions about why i have my opinions are wrong. my opinions have been spelled out pretty well, i think...whenever someone claims to know why those opposed to the new way is upset, and that opinion differs from what i have said is the basis for my opinion, then that poster has made a generalization that does not speak for me.

the fact is, no matter what type of spin you want to put on it, each of the teams in the top 10 or within 400 points will be given points. the leader will be given enough points to reach 5050, second will be given enough points to have 5045, etc...(unless my memory isn't correct, and it's 5000, 4995, 4990, etc. like someone else said)...that means if someone dominates the first part of the year, they will not be given as many points after race 26 as the guys that didn't perform as well...i'm not sure how that is the right thing to do.

i don't really care about how race points are awarded, i just want to see a system where the points for race 1+ race 2+ race 3+ race 4+...+ race 36=season points. not race 1+ race 2+ race 3+ race 4+...+ race 26+ X+ race 27+ race 28+...+ race 36=season points, where X equals some number to be determined after race 26, for the top 10 or more only.

 

[DE_Wrangler_2]

I think I followed that nacare! But with that system, what would you do about the points racing toward the end of almost every season? That is what NASCAR is trying to get away from...........and for that, I commend them for their efforts. I happen to like the Championship concept for an end of the season award. It puts a crown on the driver and team that performed the best over the whole season.......or that is what Championships are supposed to do anyway. But can you honestly tell me that last season Ryan Newman's second half of the season did not out shine Matt Kennseth's? I can't honestly say it because Matt was coasting to the win and Ryan was fighting for the win...........Matt's advantage was the points sytem. He used it well and won.........for that he deserves every "kudo" there is. But don't you think it would be so much more deserved had he also fought as hard and Ryan? That was the old system's only flaw that I could see.........I'm glad NASCAR is trying to fix it.

 

[racefan against nascare]

(1) But with that system, what would you do about the points racing toward the end of almost every season?... (2) But can you honestly tell me that last season Ryan Newman's second half of the season did not out shine Matt Kennseth's? ...(3)But don't you think it would be so much more deserved had he also fought as hard and Ryan?

to answer the questions:

1. if someone wanted to "cruise" to a $500,000 championship instead of running for $250,000 wins, let them.

2. ryan's second half may have outshined matt's second half, but matt had a better first half...while the #17 was showing up with quality finishes all season long, the #12 team was busy racking up dnf's and poor finishes...the 17 bunch beat more people throughout the course of the season, it's not their fault that the guys that were closest to them had a bunch of bad finishes and gave them the oppurtunity to "lay back" for the last part of the season, and it's nascare's fault that the championship money made that such an attractive desicion.

3. no...matt fought well during the first part of the season and racked up anough of a point lead to allow the team to focus on finishing well instead of having to battle the whole way. if other teams would have performed better, then they would have forced kenseth into battle mode. the only reason newman and johnson (i don't think his late season performance should be overlooked) had to fight so hard is because they simply didn't show up with their "a game" all year. it shouldn't matter when a team shows up to fight, whether it's the first part of the year or the second part...the champion should be the one that put up the best numbers over the course of the year, balancing wins, top 5's, and top 10's against dnf's and bottom-half finishes. however, this new system will start the final ten races with the leader only having a token lead...it rewards last 10 performance way more than dominance over the first 26 races...and the only stated reason for doing it is so nascare can get more media attention and higher ratings.

they are not doing it because they think the last ten races of the season is the best measure of who deserves the championship, they are doing it so that the billionaires that run the sport can get more money...that, in MY opinion, is the worst reason to change the way a sport operates.

i can sympathize with changes being made in other series, such as asa and cart/owrs/champ, when the series is in major jeopardy of folding...but it was not even close to being a do-or-die proposition for nascar. the old system built it up from nowhere to #2, and every indication was pointing to continued growth...this change has never received my support, the only way i think i would ever support it is if it was part of a two division cup series, cup east and cup west or something like that...if they went to such a system, where they could hold up to 62 races without adding to the length of the season, where they could continue to hold races at historically significant racetracks while still branching out to new market. with two or more divisions, there would be a need to see how the teams from each of the two compare against each other.