[Quality88]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

HEY !!!! Who's an old man ??? I'm retired but not old. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Ah come on LSC... Age is nothing, it's your mentality that matters. I know your not old... just couldn't resist to pick on you just a little.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Ah come on LSC... Age is nothing, it's your mentality that matters. I know your not old... just couldn't resist to pick on you just a little.

I was just kidding also. Ask my wife about my mentality. I'm very young !!!!!

[trollmc08]

Originally Posted by BringBackWilkesboro

Let me tell you right now, in the era I'm talking about, from about 1936 to 1996, if you wanted to win you had to work to do it. It was back in a day were if you didn't have what it takes, you failed, and didn't whine until NA$CAR made the cars almost identical. If driver had a problem with his car, he'd fix it himself so it would be done right. Most drivers these days such as Kasey Kahne and Kyle Busch wouldnt even think about getting there hands near the engine or anything else. And when things aren't done right, they complain about it forever. And about the "stand emptying snoozer", if the stands were so empty wingkey, why have tracks grown from a place where a town can go to have a beer and watch a few hours of the sport he loves to huge, 100,000 seat stadiums? Why would Big Bill spend the money he didnt have to expand an empty racetrack? In those days, he actually needed the money to put food on the table, not to gain power. I guess what separates old from new school racing, or racing from NA$CAR is that the older genaration appreciates hard work instead of whining. If a guy worked hard enough to win by an entire lap, than by god he deserved it and the fans appreciated it. Fans and Fan$ are two completely different things.

YES!!! I knew there were other people out there that are true RACE fans. Well said...

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Matt won it in 2003 the same way alot of champions before him had done it with consistency. He may have had only one win but he had a S%#t load of top 5's and 10's. That's the way it should be. I think the chase would have happened in some way or form anyways.

I see your point, Dustin. However, you bring up a point which really irritates me, IRT the Playoff.

The prevailing thinking (which NASCAR makes a point of NOT denying) is one reason that they came up with the Playoff was because Kenseth's uninspiring one-win Championship year. B.S. IF that were the case then NASCAR would have changed they system back in 1973 when the late Benny Parson's won the Championship with only a single win. (21 top tens in 28 starts; how's that for consistancy?)

NASCAR came up with the Playoff format for one reason and one reason only; to compete with the NFL for press coverage. In doing so they changed an unbroken standings format which had remained virtually unchanged sine they began racing more than one race in a given season and deciding a champion.

It was just one more step in deluding real racing into just another made-for- TV consumption, entertainment event.

I don't like the Playoff format but I have no real major problems with it per se; it's just the, to me, it makes NASCAR racing a little more less creditable and a little bit more... contrived?

But, as long as all the drivers and teams have to play by the same rules then whether they have a straight 36 week series or a 26/10 week series, I have no real complaint.

IF they really wanted to do away with points racing then give the winner a point spread that would make running first REALLY worthwhile; maybe an additional 50 points wo win? This consistancy thing looks good on paper and gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling, I guess. However, in all too many cases "consistancy equals points racing and points racing almost always equals B-O-R-I-N-G.

I see absolutely nothing worong with the driver/team who has the most wins taking home the top prize. To me it seems kind of... fitting?