[Smoke+GibbsFan]

How about an update on this thread after each race?

[Mike24]

Originally Posted by Smoke+GibbsFan

How about an update on this thread after each race?

Here it is! Credit goes to www.Race2Win.net for these points.

1. Matt Kesneth 4875
2. Jimmie Johnson -35
3. Kevin Harvick -382
4. Tony Stewart -387
5. Denny Hamlin -480
6. Dale Earnhardt Jr -483
7. Kyle Busch -562
8. Jeff Gordon -564
9. Jeff Burton -595
10. Mark Martin -655

[wingkey1]

Forgive me for similar post in similar thread.

A decision seems to need to be made with regard to just which are true "Classic" points. Erroneously some seem to perceive the last iteration of points scoring as "Classic". This may not be seen as accurate - read on.

Were that indeed the case, what, pray tell are the point that would be computed from the excerpt that follows? Classic Classic points? Classic Classic Classic points? Just who is leading / winning / already has won based on the following?

There has been a suggestion that were some of the "$ winnings" approaches employed, a winner of both the Daytona 500 and the Brickyard 400 in the same year had it all sown up after the Brickyard.

Inquiring minds want to know the COMPLETE picture. As for me - today I count myself amongst the mindless.

From the beginning of championship series until 1967 championship points were based on prize money purses. Races with lesser purses paid fewer points than races with bigger purses.

First, NASCAR point system used for championship from 1949 till 1951 awarded points on basis 10 points for the 1st place, 9 pts for 2nd, 8 pts for 3rd and so on, multiplied by 0.05*race purse (Race worth $4000 paid 200 points to the winner, 180 for 2nd place...). No info about how many points were given to drivers finishing below 10th place.

From 1952 till 1967, NASCAR point system was based on linear scale for first 25 positions: 25-24-23-... Coefficients changed, but were always depending on prize money. From 25th place down there were awarded the same number of points.
In 1968, NASCAR started to award points depending on race distance, not prize money. Point system was 50-49-48-... multiplied by 1 for events to 249 miles, 2 for events 250-399 miles and 3 for events 400 miles and more. System stopped from 50th place. This system was in use until the end of 1971 season.

In 1972, together with shortening the schedule, the point system was also modified. Basic points of 100-98-96-... were awarded for each race. Additionally, lap points were awarded for the number of laps completed. Tracks under 1 mile, 0.25 points a lap; 1-mile tracks, 0.50; 1.3-mile track (Darlington), 0.70; 1.5-mile tracks, 0.75; 2-mile tracks (Michigan), 1.00; tracks 2.5 miles and over, 1.25. This system was also used in 1973.

In 1974, the points system was simple: Total money winnings from all track purses (qualifying and contingency awards did not count), in dollars, multiplied by the number of races started, and the resulting figure divided by 1,000 determined the number of points earned. By the end of the season Richard Petty had such a big lead in points, that he increased it even by finishing 30th while his main rival Cale Yarborough made a top-5 (Remember - the money was multiplied by the number of races started. Even if Cale made more money in one particular race, when the total money was multiplied by e. g. 27, the difference between the two leaders could also increase in comparison with situation after race 26).

The current NASCAR points system was developed in 1975 following years of trouble in trying to develop a points system -- from 1949 until 1971, six different systems were used, and in 1972, NASCAR used a different system each year for the next three years.

That type of inconsistency, which included a system, which rewarded most mileage for the entire season, and then another year where mileage and finishing positions were counted, favored larger circuits, and some fans complained about a champion who only won one race. That resulted in a 1974 ill-fated attempt at basing the points system on money and starts. Even though one driver won consecutive races, his opponent who had won the big money races had scored more points.
Bob Latford, a former public relations official at Lowe's Motor Speedway, devised NASCAR's most popular points system, which was adopted in 1975, which NASCAR used two different versions for their series from 1982 until 1998. In the system, the winner received 175 points, second 170 points, and other positions exactly the same as the current points system.

One complaint about the points system was how a driver could finish second and receive an equal number of points as a race winner, which was possible if the driver who led the most laps finished second. NASCAR fixed the problem in 2004 by adding five points to the winner.

[oncea3fan]

I thought nascar used the same points system from 1973 until 2003(called modern era), 2004 the chase format took over.
I believe it is still posible for 2nd place to get equal points as the winner.

the points didn't change other than the last 10 races and the chasers, 11th back(or those not in the chase) still uses the same points as the 73-2003.

please correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the 1st time.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by oncea3fan

I thought nascar used the same points system from 1973 until 2003(called modern era), 2004 the chase format took over.
I believe it is still posible for 2nd place to get equal points as the winner.

the points didn't change other than the last 10 races and the chasers, 11th back(or those not in the chase) still uses the same points as the 73-2003.

please correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the 1st time.

See post previous to your quote above. As you will see there were different points systems both before and after 1973. The last (Modern era?) was implemented in 1975. However, there was even a change after that to help ensure the race winner would not/could not be tied (in the race) by the "laps led" individual.

Remember the old classic Abbott & Costello routine - "Who's on First". I believe we have the makings of a modern era - "Who's in first" - version.

[oncea3fan]

yep your right!(you knew that though).I had no Idea.

nasacar.com
The winner of each Nextel Cup race receives 180 points. The runner-up scores 170. From there, the point total declines in five-point increments for Nos. 2-6; points drop four points per driver for Nos. 7-11; and three-point increments separate drivers' points for finishers 12th place and lower.
In addition to the points allocated, any driver who leads a lap receives five bonus points. The driver who leads the most laps receives an additional five bonus points.

In Nextel Cup racing, following the 26th race of the season, all drivers in the top 10 -- and any others within 400 points of the leader -- earn a berth in the Chase for the Nextel Cup.
All drivers in the Chase will have their point totals adjusted. The first-place driver in the standings begins the Chase with 5,050 points; the second-place driver will start with 5,045, etc. Incremental five-point drops will continue through 10th place (5,005 points).
If more than 10 drivers qualify for the Chase, the additional drivers will have their points reset at 5,005.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by oncea3fan

Oncea3fan: yep your right!(you knew that though).I had no Idea.

I too was a bit surprised by the number of approaches that determined and awarded points over the years.

The “modern era” from 1975 to 2004/5 surely isn’t “Classic” by any stretch. Fact is any attempt to publish standings based on this definition would have to include two lists. If it didn’t, it would be incomplete/meaningless. One list would be for the period during which additional points (5) were added for first place to ensure the “laps led” driver could not end up with an equal number of point as the winner. The other, obviously, would be for the time (within the "modern era") when this inequity was not addressed. Would the lists be different? Can’t know till their computed/presented.

Claims that the present (Chase) approach is more or less good than only the last most recent may provide some satisfaction (self serving?) to some, but it most assuredly is inconclusive. Only if/when the present (Chase) is compared to all previous approaches (The true Classics) could a determination be made as to whether the present approach consistently produces final results substantially different that the majority of the others.

Till then just can’t get too excited over the “shoulda, woulda, coulda” presentations. It is what it is till it isn’t.

Makes your head hurt don’t it?