gnomesayin
Team Owner
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 12,948
- Points
- 1,033
It worked to keep the points race close by propping up the mid-field cruisers and under-rewarding the best teams and drivers that did most of the winning. It was never designed to insure that the best driver won the championship. It was designed to keep the points race alive until the end of the season. A points scale that is nearly linear from first place to last place will *always* under-reward the winners and prop up the mid field.
In my opinion, it is the most egregious gimmick in the history of Nascar. I have hated that points system since I first learned how it worked in the late 1970's. And it has resulted in the championship being awarded to the wrong guy multiple times over the years.
IMO, the reason so many people look back fondly at that Latford Points Scale is that it was there for so long, and most people have not compared objectives and outcomes versus truly progressive rewards systems that more accurately reward the accomplishment of winning races.
Agreed. The primary motivation and emphasis for the Latford scale was creating a system that would reward participation above all else and strongly incentivize teams to compete in every event on the schedule, back when this wasn't a given. It was very poorly designed if rewarding high performance were the goal, and only "worked" when the champion team was so much better than the competition that they would have won under any system.
Any incarnation of the Chase / playoffs is worse, but Latford always needed fixing. It isn't difficult to look around motorsports and find more suitable points distributions.