Wins should hold more weight

T

TonyB

Guest
Full Story At That's Racin'

By DAVID POOLE
The Charlotte Observer

MARTINSVILLE, Va. – If you went back through every football game played this season and gave 20 points for touchdowns and only three for field goals, you'd have some very different final scores and team records.
But if touchdowns were worth 20 points and field goals only three, far more teams would go for it on fourth down. The way the game is played would change so much that it would be pointless to apply the "new rules" retroactively.

The same holds true for stock-car racing.

How many times this year have you wondered what the Winston Cup standings would look like if the points system used in the Indy Racing League or Formula 1 were applied?

The other night, my wife was reading a recipe for maple glazed meatloaf sandwiches in some magazine. That recipe has as much to do with the 32 Cup races run this year as the IRL or F1 systems do.

With four races left, Matt Kenseth still is in command of the race for the 2003 title. After finishing 14th Sunday in the Subway 500 at Martinsville Speedway, he's up 240 points on Kevin Harvick. If Kenseth scores 501 more points in the final four races – averaging a 12th-place finish – he wins the title.

That's the only math that really matters, but there must be a thousand ways to add up a 36-race season. Just about everybody's got an about how a champion should be determined.

For several years, The Observer and Thatsracin.com kept something we called the Competition Index. It gave drivers more points for winning races and poles and leading miles and took away bonus points now given for leading a lap and the most laps in a race.

Under that system this year, Ryan Newman's eight poles and eight wins would put him 14 points behind Kenseth at this juncture, with Jeff Gordon 178 back and Dale Earnhardt Jr. 200 behind.

And if Aunt Myrtle had chest hair and an Adam's apple, she'd be Uncle Fred.

Yes, it's true that Kenseth hasn't won a Winston Cup race since March 2, back when Matt Doherty was coaching North Carolina basketball and Arnold Schwarzenegger was just another mediocre actor.

Kenseth hasn't had a top-five finish since Labor Day and has led 10 fewer laps in the past seven races, total, than Joe Nemechek led Sunday at Martinsville. But Kenseth's people at Roush Racing are still busy working on designs for his championship T-shirts and figuring out seating charts for the really good tables at the banquet in New York.

That's the system, and it's not an indictment on Kenseth, crew chief Robby Reiser and their team to say that the system is stupid.

College basketball's rules used to allow teams to run time off the clock when they had the lead. When enough people made enough noise in protest of such tactics, the college game went to a shot clock that limits the effectiveness of a stall. And the good teams adapted their strategy to the new system.

If NASCAR had a different points system in place, one that made winning races so important it would actually hurt teams not to make that their overriding purpose, good teams like Kenseth's would race differently in their quest for a championship. It has been said a thousand times, but whether you call it "points racing" or what, the leader's team's approach to this season has been smart racing.

Remember, Kenseth won five races last year, more than anyone else in NASCAR's top series. But Tony Stewart won the championship and that's what it'll always say in the record books.

Kenseth, Reiser and the gang on the No. 17 Fords have taken the system that's in place this year and made it work for them. If Reiser had put some kind of exotic set-up under Kenseth's car for a race in the past few weeks and had it backfire on the team in some way, people – like me – would be asking why he'd do such a foolish thing and risk a perfectly comfortable points lead.

Newman has eight wins this year and Kenseth has only the one. Some people, therefore, don't understand how Kenseth could be behind Newman in the standings. If Newman has won eight "games" and Kenseth only one, shouldn't Newman be ahead?

That kind of stick-and-ball analogy can be used both ways. In 32 races this year, Kenseth has beat Newman 20 times and finished behind him just 12 times. Kenseth is 21-11 against Tony Stewart, 20-12 against Jimmie Johnson, 18-14 heads-up against Earnhardt Jr. and Gordon both and 17-15 straight up on Harvick.

Interesting? Perhaps, but again it's also irrelevant.

Several weeks ago, there seemed to be real momentum toward making changes in the points system for next year. Tight races for titles in the Busch and Truck series under the same system used in Winston Cup may have stunted that momentum, but they should not. No disrespect to NASCAR's top support series, but the International League standings rightly have no bearing on October's playoff schedule in baseball's big leagues.

It's true that no championship points leader has won a Cup race since Sterling Marlin did it at Darlington in March of 2002 – 64 races ago. That's a joke, but it's also the system's fault. The path to a championship ought to be routed more directly through Victory Lane, but unless and until it is, don't blame Kenseth's team for staying on it.
 
Totally agree! Racing is done to see who wins, not who can drive around in circles without a hood! Ryan Newman has driven like a champion this year...IMO
 
I do think somehow wins should contribute more to winning the championship than it does. I also think poles should count for something towards the championship. An awful lot of effort goes into the qualifying effort each weak, and should be rewarded in the points system.
 
As stated by Tony:That kind of stick-and-ball analogy can be used both ways. In 32 races this year, Kenseth has beat Newman 20 times and finished behind him just 12 times. Kenseth is 21-11 against Tony Stewart, 20-12 against Jimmie Johnson, 18-14 heads-up against Earnhardt Jr. and Gordon both and 17-15 straight up on Harvick.


Sounds like everything is ok to me. I don't like points racing anymore than the next guy but consistency is what you should look for. When Ryan Newman and Kurt Busch learns how to save their racecars they will blow the points race out of the water.
 
I totally agree that the system should be changed. It was horrible watching Bill Elliott and Rusty Wallace win all these freaking races and then Earnhardt wins the freaking title because he had a bunch of top 10's! Winning the race should get the team/driver more points! End of story!
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Oct 21 2003, 09:49 AM
As stated by Tony:That kind of stick-and-ball analogy can be used both ways. In 32 races this year, Kenseth has beat Newman 20 times and finished behind him just 12 times. Kenseth is 21-11 against Tony Stewart, 20-12 against Jimmie Johnson, 18-14 heads-up against Earnhardt Jr. and Gordon both and 17-15 straight up on Harvick.


Sounds like everything is ok to me. I don't like points racing anymore than the next guy but consistency is what you should look for. When Ryan Newman and Kurt Busch learns how to save their racecars they will blow the points race out of the water.
Just to clarify, I posted the article, but it was written by David Poole of That's Racin'.
 
I like Matt but the fact that a driver could win the Cup without even winning a race is wrong.

A Champion is a winner. Not the guy who is the 5th loser each week.
 
Originally posted by rajflyboy@Oct 21 2003, 10:04 AM
I totally agree that the system should be changed. It was horrible watching Bill Elliott and Rusty Wallace win all these freaking races and then Earnhardt wins the freaking title because he had a bunch of top 10's! Winning the race should get the team/driver more points! End of story!
I am a big DE fan and I agree with you. The most wins should be by the Champ. Not top 10's.

The fact that a driver can win the Cup without even winning a race says the point system is screwed up.

A Champion is a winner. Plain and simple.
 
In my business one of the worst insults you can throw at someone on the job is to call them "one way". Once someone establishes that there is only one way to get something done, they are too restricted to be in any way effective.

The points system should operate under the same premise. And it does. There are many ways to win the championship in NASCAR, at some point a driver has won it using al the paths there are. Wining the most races, winning the fewest races among the winners, overcoming more DNF's with better runs, overcoming worse runs with no DNF's. Coming on strong for half a season, or maintaining a competitive drive for the entire season. It has all been done. The system allows all these different roads to lead to the crown, and also allows that following any one of these roads may lead nowhere if a competitor follows a different road and does it better.

Much of the clamor seems to stem from two things, Matt has won only one race, and the chase is not close. But next year, like last year, the system may deliver a very close race and the winningest driver may lose. Or like in the past, a close race and the winningest driver will win.
Or perhaps even 4 or 5 drivers tied for the most wins, but a runaway points race................


IMO, the system does exactly what a points system should do.
 
I see the point in rewarding consitency but I think the current points system rewards consitency at the expense of rewarding winning.

Make a win worth 50 points more than it is today, and you'll see a lot more teams takes chance to get that win. You'll see a lot a different pit startegies instead of everyone doign the same thing.

The championship has become more important than winning races. It is time to restore the importance of the individual races.

If a win were worth 50 points more than it is now, here's the current points:

1. Newman (4648)
2. Kenseth (4598) -50
3. Johnson (4392) -256
4. Harvick (4358) -290
5. Junior (4315) -333
6. J Gordon (4302) -346
7. Stewart (4071) -577
8. B Labonte (3890) -758
9. Busch (3866) -782
10. T Labonte (3825) -823
 
alright, if winning is awarded 50 points maybe DNF'ing should have points deducted, because a champion can't have 5 or 6 DNF's a year either.
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Oct 21 2003, 11:02 AM
alright, if winning is awarded 50 points maybe DNF'ing should have points deducted, because a champion can't have 5 or 6 DNF's a year either.
Why? I guess the question is "what do you want to reward?"

Personally, I'd rather see the guy go for the win even at the risk of finishing last as opposed to driving around in circles, staying out of trouble, and finishing 13th.
 
While I agree that there some good suggestions, I really don't disagree with present system. Consistency is whar Cup is all about, but I wouldn't mind seeing an extra 5 points for a win and maybe 5 for the pole. Perhaps it all depends on your definition of Cup Champ.
 
I guarantee that if your favorite driver was leading the points right now you would'nt be complaining about the points
 
Originally posted by steveluvs3@Oct 21 2003, 02:32 PM
I guarantee that if your favorite driver was leading the points right now you would'nt be complaining about the points.

Again I'll state that I believe the system rewards consistency too much and winning too little. We all see it every week. These guys is the points race are more concerned with the points championship than with winning the individual race.

In all of this discussion, I've noticed that there has been very little concern for making the champions system enhance the quality of the individual race. I'm not really concerned about "picking the right champion." Any system could be used and the "right" guy will win because he won under the system that was in palce before the year started. I'm more concerned with answering the question "Does the current system encourage the best racing week-in and week out?" and the follow-up question "Is there a system that would better in encourage better racing week-in and week-out?"
Well Ricky isn't leading the points and isn't likely to do so, so we may never know if that statement is true or not....But I've had the same complaint about the poitns system for several years. My complaint isn't based in this year's results, but rather based on observations over a period of time.
 
Originally posted by TexasRaceLady@Oct 21 2003, 01:53 PM
I have no quarrel with the point system the way it is.

A champion must show consistency at every kind of track. Matt has shown that this year.
Matt may be consistent, but the car can't win and that should be #1.
 
2003
Driver_______ / Points / Races / wins / top 5s / top 10s
Matt Kenseth___4548___32_____1____10______23
Ryan Newman__-300___32_____8____15______20

1996
Driver_______ / Points / Races / Wins / top 5s / top 10s
Terry Labonte__4657____31_____2____21_____24
Jeff Gordon_____-37_____31____10____21_____24


Ryan newman has alot more wins and more top 5s, but less top 10s and 300 less points then matt. Jeff Gordon had alot more wins and the same top 5s and top 10s but 37 less points then terry.

I just dont see how this is right.
 
Originally posted by smack500@Oct 21 2003, 03:26 PM



Ryan newman has alot more wins and more top 5s, but less top 10s and 300 less points then matt. Jeff Gordon had alot more wins and the same top 5s and top 10s but 37 less points then terry.

I just dont see how this is right.
check finishes outside the top 20.
 
I disagree with the idea of awarding points for pole.

Granted the teams work really hard to get there, it just doesn't make sense to award points outside of the actual race. Also, the given advantage of starting first is enough to keep teams pushing for the pole...

I doubt you hear a lot of teams saying "We're starting 30th...just like we had hoped."

Using the football theme: It's like awarding 3 points to the stronger team since they caught all their passes in practice that week.

Give points after the Green.
 
How about no points for 30 or 35th or worse, to keep these wrecked racecars off the track
 
I have no problem with the current points system.
And I also feel that Consistancy should be rewarded. Not penalized.
If the driver has 9 wins, 20 DNF's and 2 top 10's should he be considered the winner over a driver with 5 wins, 22 top 10's and no dnf's???????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????????? :D :cheers:
 
This riding around for points stuff at the end of the season stuff just plane blows! I'd rather see some serious racing for the WIN at each race track!
 
David Poole must know this was hashed over and over again by NASCAR so why is this an issue, again ???
Due and timely discussion within the NASCAR organization have beat this topic to death as recently as the past three months. It has been analyzed, scrutinized, investigated, examined, looked into, had studies done....................studies done ??????

YESSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!! Studies done. NASCAR took a ten year block or more and tried different applications of formula changes to the point system. Extra points for the win, garnering a pole, etc.. And not one time did it change the outcome. A complete list was published upon completion of these scenarios so it wasn't like it was a NASCAR secret.

I guess every time things turn about the way they are now, one driver having won only one race and another driver winning eight, it is logical changes in the system should be investigated. This time, they really have been and nothing changed.

The point system is fine just the way it is.
 
Hmmm, Whizzer, I like your thinking and YES, the point system has been analyzed about to death!
 
Personally, I'd like to see less emphasis on the championship altogether, and more on winning races. How 'bout this: instead of having NEXTEL pay out all that money at the end of the season, take the majority of it and equally divide it among the purses for all the races. Make the purse for every race the same, and make it a lot. To help eliminate "cherry-picking," all the races should have the same purse, and the same amount should be paid to 1st, 2nd, etc. whether it's Indy or Martinsville. Get a race sponsor for every event, and determine what they will pay; obviously, this will be less for a race at Rockingham than the Daytona 500, based on the exposure the event sponsor will receive. The rest of the money needed to meet the purse requirement will come from the NEXTEL sponsorship. So what I'm saying is, take the money that is paid out based on points at the end of the year now, and use it to up the purses for every event, and make that purse the same for each event. Winning should be rewarded, and rewarded heavily. The points champion would still get some money at the end, and a nice trophy, and his name recorded for all time as a NASCAR champion- that should be enough. Speaking of points, only give points for the first 20 finishers (no points for pole or anything else), and weight points payout fairly heavily towards the leader. Say what you will about common templates, aero-push, and restrictor plates, but it's my opinion that the single best way to improve the on-track action is to give the drivers a reason to want to win, not just get points. Will any of this happen? Almost certainly not. But that's my opinion, and I'm standing by it! :)
 
Yup, you want to see more drivers going for the win just put a bigger pot of gold at the checkered flag.

The heads up stats tell the tale. Matt has done whooped em all.
 
LOL....There are probably as many "opinions" on the point system as there are actual ways of calculating the points. That said, I do agree with a previous post that winning the pole position should play no part in the point system. I believe in awarding points based on actual racing. :cheers:
 
Here's my two pennies.

The most common argument against the current point system that I've heard is that it's unfair to Ryan Newman and other drivers who win a lot. Here's what I think: any point system is fair as long as it's the same for everybody. Ryan Newman is racing with the same point system as Matt Kenseth - as are Kevin Harvick, Dale Jr., and everyone else. If Ryan can't make the pont system work to his advantage, that's his problem, not Matt's.

Besides, the NASCAR schedules are much longer than those of any other sanctioning body. In a 36-race schedule, I don't think the champion should be decided by their best 9 or 10 races. That said, there are two small changes I would make to the system. I would add 5 points for the pole, so that drivers aren't so passive about their qualifying efforts. Too often, you hear some chump say after qualifing 30th, "We'll be okay on race day." I don't think they'd have that attitude if points were on the line. And I'd add 10 points for winning, mainly to solve the one problem I have with the current system - that the 2nd-place finisher can earn as many points as the winner. But in the end, it's the team's job to work the points to their advantage; it's not NASCAR's job to just change it in order to benefit a certain driving style.
 
While I'm in basic agreement with the current point system(in place since 1975),I don't think that the 2nd place finisher of a race,Whom leads the most laps,should receive 180 points,while the winner of that race also receives 180 points,a hollow victory if U ask Me,I think that winning should account for a little more than just 5 points,I'd advocate 10 more points for winning,or 185 points(excluding any bonus points),this way a driver has more incentive to win,while still mainly rewarding consistency overall.
I'd also point to the excellent examples offered by smack5000 concerning the 1996 & 2003 Championship standing's results,a driver with 10 wins loses to a driver with 2 wins,at the moment current points leader Matt Kenseth with 1 win,wins the Trophy over a driver with 8 wins,there's something definitely wrong here IMO,a slight tweaking would really promote going for the win,while still rewarding Top 5's & Top 10's handsomely.
I also like the idea of rewarding 5 points to the pole-sitter,most driver's finish Their careers with far more wins than poles,thus this accomplishment must be harder to obtain than wins & should be included in the points system based on it's importance.I know the pole-sitter has the advantage of starting up front & selecting the fave pit-stall which in itself is very important at the short tracks especially IMO,but the pole-sitter can,and does,spin out or gets shuffled back on lap 1 and sometimes don't lead a lap the entire race,but with 5 points for acheiving the pole position then that team still has something to show for all of Their effort,JMO <_<
 
Well I agree, the point system should be changed. Nascar should change it to the same system that the Busch and Craftsman Truck series uses. After all, those are some tight points battles in those two series!!! :rolleyes:

How come this has been such a big issue this year? Especially when Matt was leading by over 400 points? In case any of ya haven't noticed...the guy in 2nd & the guy in 3rd place have only one win this season also. And I don't believe for a second that if Harvick or Dale Jr. was up by over 400 points that we would reading about how the point system needs to be changed. We would be reading about how the 'Earnhardt' legacy lives on! :bleh:
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Oct 21 2003, 11:02 AM
alright, if winning is awarded 50 points maybe DNF'ing should have points deducted, because a champion can't have 5 or 6 DNF's a year either.
TY Bow...because in CART & F1 the back markers don't get points for low finishes & these have been the series that the reporters have been comparing too with most of their arguments.
 
This issue is indeed a double edge, no make it triple edge sword.

Many think it's unfair to some teams however at the same time, I'm not saying that some teams dont try to win the race, however the fans want to see the driver who wins the races lead the points and be the favorite for the championship and not someone who points-races.

Why you could even finish second in a race, lead the most laps and the guy who wins has the same amount of points as you do. That to me kinda warrants a change.
 
What bugs me the most is the folks that assume Matt is just point racing and not trying to win races this year. I agree that some races Matt looked to be point racing, but I know for fact that most races he was trying to win. Case in point is the Brickyard, he had a faster car than Harvick and probably could have got around him if it wasn't for Havick's teammate blocking Matt.
 
Yeah, he Couldve won in theory but still, he didnt ! :D

In all seriousness though I dont really have any bad blood against the points the way they are. I think Kenseth and the 17 team have done an exceptional job to stay out of wrecks or bad incidents all season. I disagree with CW's argument, there have been races Kenseth has had a chance of winning but had somethings not go his way. Will he win again this season? Possibly, theres Phoenix, a track were Roush cars have done well in the past and Matt won in 2002. So it'd be unfair to change the points when x driver leads the points by triple digits and when x driver hasnt finished lower than 22nd, well at least before Talladega.

And we cant leave out the Busch and Truck points races either, theyre separated by only a few 30 points in some cases.
 
Originally posted by 17_Fan@Oct 22 2003, 07:51 PM
Well I agree, the point system should be changed. Nascar should change it to the same system that the Busch and Craftsman Truck series uses. After all, those are some tight points battles in those two series!!! :rolleyes:

How come this has been such a big issue this year? Especially when Matt was leading by over 400 points? In case any of ya haven't noticed...the guy in 2nd & the guy in 3rd place have only one win this season also. And I don't believe for a second that if Harvick or Dale Jr. was up by over 400 points that we would reading about how the point system needs to be changed. We would be reading about how the 'Earnhardt' legacy lives on! :bleh:
oh boy here we go, I think the reason is because matt had such a lead there really was'nt going to be a fight for the championship, so your earnhardt legacy theory is just about as thin as nascar giving DEI special advantages. So I pretty sure if jr. or anybody for that matter had a lead like matt's you would still be gettin people wantin to change the points system.
 
So you seriously think its fine that the second place finisher can get the same amount is the winner???

50 might be a little harsh but how about 10. It might not change the outcome much but its rediculous that first and second can get the same amount of points. Dont see how people dont have a problem with this.
 
Back
Top Bottom