[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by jks812

Now that would make it interesting.

I think so but I'd still like to hear the history on the current points system from the Forum historians.

[jks812]

I would too.

[Racer Duck]

me too.

who are the Forum historians?

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

me too.

who are the Forum historians?

Unofficially I would vote for several, yourself included. The folks that have been around since the inception of NASCAR and who have driven, crewed, owned and so on. If I started listing names I surley leave someone out and rumor has it from my sweet wife that I'm cruel enough now. Why make matters worse.

Are you volunteering for the job Ducky ??? You'd be allowed to post as much and as often as you'd like for free !!!

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Unofficially I would vote for several, yourself included. The folks that have been around since the inception of NASCAR and who have driven, crewed, owned and so on. If I started listing names I surley leave someone out and rumor has it from my sweet wife that I'm cruel enough now. Why make matters worse.

Are you volunteering for the job Ducky ??? You'd be allowed to post as much and as often as you'd like for free !!!

I'd be proud to interpret Racing-Reference.info and NASCAR.com for the masses (can't count on my memory cells - I think some of them have retired also.) But I had hoped for a small stipend to cover the cost of my annual official "GTG NASCAR Forum Historian" t-shirt and matching ball cap.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I'd be proud to interpret Racing-Reference.info and NASCAR.com for the masses (can't count on my memory cells - I think some of them have retired also.) But I had hoped for a small stipend to cover the cost of my annual official "GTG NASCAR Forum Historian" t-shirt and matching ball cap.

Ahhh ... yeah. We'll get that for you as soon as I get mine.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I think so but I'd still like to hear the history on the current points system from the Forum historians.

The following is an excerpt from an article I'll give the link to for full perusal:

"Let me tell you about putting that points system together. In 1974, I was public relations director at Atlanta Motor Speedway, and I went over to Talladega Superspeedway for a race. I saw Bill France Jr., who was then president at NASCAR. He and Bill Sr., and Winston Cup director Bill Gazaway called me over to the office.

I thought something bad was going to happen to me. But Bill said “You´ve always been interested in numbers and math. Would you be interested in a project to give us a better points system? The one we have is confusing. Heck, the competitors have a hard time understanding it. If the competitors can´t figure out the system, the fans certainly can´t.”

So he asked me to look at a new points system. After the race, I came down to Daytona and met with Bill Whitlock, who was NASCAR´s communications director, and Phil Homer, who was a marketing services manager.

We tossed around some ideas. What are we trying to do? We were trying to determine the champion of the entire circuit, not just selected races. We talked about what we wanted to do and how we needed to get there.

We discussed people like Fireball Roberts and Junior Johnson and Curtis Turner, who were the three biggest names we had ever had in the sport. None of those three was ever a champion because they always ran up front. They put on the show. They were the drivers the people came to see. But because they ran hard every lap, their chances of being around at the finish was not good. They were more likely to crash or blow up compared to somebody that didn´t push that hard.

We decided that somewhere in this system we needed to have a reward for the guys who would get up there and run hard, so that´s where we came up with a five-point bonus for leading a lap and five more for leading the most laps.

Phil owned the Boot Hill Saloon at the time, before it was a biker bar. We went there after work one day to have a couple of beers. We sat there and talked about it and tried several formulas. We started at 175 points and drop by five points for each of the top five positions, then by four for the next five and by three from there back.

It hadn´t been that long since we had started 50 cars in races, so they wanted a break all the way to the end of the field. Using that formula, it goes all the way back to 54 places, if necessary. We worked it out on cocktail napkins. I applied that formula to the three previous years to see how it worked out. I went back to my office in Atlanta, typed it up and sent it to Bill Jr., and it was adopted as submitted for the 1975 season and has remained unchanged ever since.” -- Bob Latford"

Special Projects -- 100 Years of Racing | NIE WORLD

This should tell you everything you wanted to know about the current point system.

[Bob Tanner]

I like the current point system EXCEPT I would like to see

(A)1st changed from 185 pts to 225
2nd changed from 180 pts to 200
3rd changed from 175 pts to 180

This would give drivers incentive to drive to win, not just "points race."

(B)Make all positions from 33rd to 43rd worth 50 pts.

This would discourage the "rolling wrecks" from coming back out to get in a competitive car's way just so they could garner three or six additional pts.

(C)Do completely away with the "Dave Marcis - mediocre drivers want bonus points too" 5 pts for just leading a lap.

No talent involved; you just have to stay out when all the others pit. A bogus pt reward if there ever was one!

Leave everything else the same. It's basically worked since 1974; it just needs a little tweaking.

[BringBackWilkesboro]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

We discussed people like Fireball Roberts and Junior Johnson and Curtis Turner, who were the three biggest names we had ever had in the sport. None of those three was ever a champion because they always ran up front. They put on the show. They were the drivers the people came to see. But because they ran hard every lap, their chances of being around at the finish was not good. They were more likely to crash or blow up compared to somebody that didn´t push that hard.

We decided that somewhere in this system we needed to have a reward for the guys who would get up there and run hard, so that´s where we came up with a five-point bonus for leading a lap and five more for leading the most laps.

Those two paragraphs remind me exactly why these changes needed to be made. The system they ran before that turned into circus act now that I look back on it. The year before they did this, Benny Parsons won the championship based on some crazy thing like how many miles he completed along with some other whacky point values. BP's final point total was 7173.80 and Cale was behind him at 7106.65. It was really a joke that nobody really understood. I believe Jaws Waltrip, being the new guy at the time, was the first to complain.

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I like the current point system EXCEPT I would like to see

(A)1st changed from 185 pts to 225
2nd changed from 180 pts to 200
3rd changed from 175 pts to 180

This would give drivers incentive to drive to win, not just "points race."

(B)Make all positions from 33rd to 43rd worth 50 pts.

This would discourage the "rolling wrecks" from coming back out to get in a competitive car's way just so they could garner three or six additional pts.

(C)Do completely away with the "Dave Marcis - mediocre drivers want bonus points too" 5 pts for just leading a lap.

No talent involved; you just have to stay out when all the others pit. A bogus pt reward if there ever was one!

Leave everything else the same. It's basically worked since 1974; it just needs a little tweaking.

I don't know how you think like this Bob, but once again I wonder why you aren't somewhere in NASCAR managment, and I mean that in a good way.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BringBackWilkesboro

I don't know how you think like this Bob, but once again I wonder why you aren't somewhere in NASCAR managment, and I mean that in a good way.

Thanks (I think... <VBG>). Somehow the Batphone, down in the Batcave seldom rings and when it does the Caller ID never has "Brian France" showing.

Seriously, it is much easier for all of us, myself definitely included, to set back and make judgements about the way NASCAR does things, from afar. It is always much, much easier to be objective when you aren't directly involved and are able to separate the forest from the trees.

I'm sure that someone, much more intelligent than I, somewhere up on the NASCAR/ISC food chain, has come up with similar conclusions. The difference is that they have access to political and economic info the rest of us don't have, and we don't have to worry about stepping om some "suit's" toes and bruising his/her fragile ego.

Put another way, the Peter Principle is alive and well in NASCAR/ISC; Everyone rises to their own level of incompetence.

[harvick29]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I like the current point system EXCEPT I would like to see

(A)1st changed from 185 pts to 225
2nd changed from 180 pts to 200
3rd changed from 175 pts to 180

This would give drivers incentive to drive to win, not just "points race."

(B)Make all positions from 33rd to 43rd worth 50 pts.

This would discourage the "rolling wrecks" from coming back out to get in a competitive car's way just so they could garner three or six additional pts.

(C)Do completely away with the "Dave Marcis - mediocre drivers want bonus points too" 5 pts for just leading a lap.

No talent involved; you just have to stay out when all the others pit. A bogus pt reward if there ever was one!

Leave everything else the same. It's basically worked since 1974; it just needs a little tweaking.

great ideas bob.totally agree with (a) there should definitly be a larger points margin seperating the top three from the rest of the field.making the wins more important.but they have added 10 more bonus points for a win that you recieve at the start of the chase.with those points included if you lead the most laps and win the race you can earn 25 30 more points than the runner up.my only problem is with (b) if you take a guy like j.johnson who runs up front week in and week out when he finnally has a bad race we need him to have the lowest amount of points possible you say you would like it if 33 through 43 get 50 points but as it is now 43 gets 34 points (not sure exact amount but thats close)plus with the go or go homers they have to be in the top 35 in points to lock themselves into the show so you cant give 33 and back the same points.every position has to count.but i do totally agree about wrecked cars being on the track.they do have to run a minimum speed in order to keep their cars on the track.maybe they should simply raise the minimum speed so your not affecting the race up front.you are dead on with(c)couldnt agree more. but once again i think theres a simple fix to that only give bonus points for leading a lap under green.personally i think the points system is good.the only thing that i think would make it better is to give the winner more bonus points for winning like 50.or maybe giving points for qualifing make it a little more fun to watch.as it stands it doesnt matter anymore where you start.you can win almost anywhere from last place.perfect example is matt kenseth id bet they hardly ever practice in qualifing trim. because they know it doesnt matter where you start.even at daytona a couple weeks ago when qualifing was rained out. out of the cars that had a chance to go out the go or go homers where faster than all the regulars because they where in qualifing trim while the regulars where in race trim.might not have been the same if points where involved.GO 29!!!!!!!!!!

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Put another way, the Peter Principle is alive and well in NASCAR/ISC; Everyone rises to their own level of incompetence.

gosh, I haven't heard anyone (besides me) reference that time honored principle in ages .. even years...

Originally Posted by harvick29

great ideas bob.totally agree with (a) there should definitly be a larger points margin seperating the top three from the rest of the field.making the wins more important.but they have added 10 more bonus points for a win that you recieve at the start of the chase.with those points included if you lead the most laps and win the race you can earn 25 30 more points than the runner up.my only problem is with (b) if you take a guy like j.johnson who runs up front week in and week out when he finnally has a bad race we need him to have the lowest amount of points possible you say you would like it if 33 through 43 get 50 points but as it is now 43 gets 34 points (not sure exact amount but thats close)plus with the go or go homers they have to be in the top 35 in points to lock themselves into the show so you cant give 33 and back the same points.every position has to count.but i do totally agree about wrecked cars being on the track.they do have to run a minimum speed in order to keep their cars on the track.maybe they should simply raise the minimum speed so your not affecting the race up front.you are dead on with(c)couldnt agree more. but once again i think theres a simple fix to that only give bonus points for leading a lap under green.personally i think the points system is good.the only thing that i think would make it better is to give the winner more bonus points for winning like 50.or maybe giving points for qualifing make it a little more fun to watch.as it stands it doesnt matter anymore where you start.you can win almost anywhere from last place.perfect example is matt kenseth id bet they hardly ever practice in qualifing trim. because they know it doesnt matter where you start.even at daytona a couple weeks ago when qualifing was rained out. out of the cars that had a chance to go out the go or go homers where faster than all the regulars because they where in qualifing trim while the regulars where in race trim.might not have been the same if points where involved.GO 29!!!!!!!!!!

aka "Chosen"

If that abomination of a thinly veiled scheme to elicit more $$$ from sponsors were abolished, we'd not have "go or go homers" - the fastest cars would make the race .

but as long as NA$CAR bows to the almighty buck, it won't change unless the fans demand it by raising a stink about things like happened a couple weeks ago.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

If that abomination of a thinly veiled scheme to elicit more $$$ from sponsors were abolished, we'd not have "go or go homers" - the fastest cars would make the race .

:

Get out the raincoat, Ducky, my friend. Here comes some heavy humidity for your parade:

IMNSVHO, the "thinly veiled scheme you reference above is close to taking on an entirely new life of its own; FRANCHISING!

We started out with more-or-less 52 "dedicated teams at Daytona in Feb, right? We're half way through the season and that number has been reduced to...? 48, if the #13 folds?
Now look deeply into your crystal ball and think about how many teams will last the year, or last through the off season. First Jim Finch and now Ginn have proven that the most practical way for owner to get into Cup now is to have a franchise they can sell for a value if they start to drastically lose money. NA$CAR, with the backing of Hendrick, Roush, Childress, et.al, have let the price of ownership and sponsorship escalate so much that they have almost eliminated any new ownership that isn't of Bobby Ginn, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett caliber and have the sponsor and/or financial backing to put up the ante.

Roush/Fenway/Nintendo... Everham/George Gillette... starting to get the picture? My bet is that within five years NASCAR will sell a certain number of team franchises and anyone new wanting to play at pro stock car racing will have to come up with the scratch to buy an established franchise out.

Doesn't that thought give you a warm and fuzzy, right down to the toes of your Dr. Denton's?

[Racer Duck]

thanks Bob .. you put a capper on a really dreary day (been raining all day, 7"+ about 40 miles south of me at 3PM) so what's a little (lot) more?

glad I got webbed feet!