[lilsexy08]

Your killing me LSC with Gordo talk! LOL! I hate that Hendericks teams win every week lately! LOL! Even drivers I don't like I wish them to win besides Henderick! Its like not worth watching anymore unless Stewie wins! LOL!

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

The point of your post Bob that I most agree with is the one about running to win the race and not the championship. The media has turned this sport into viewer entertainment versus racing and having spectators. This whole championship thing, in all sports, is way out of control.

Probably more so than most sports, NASCAR teams can run for points versus running for the win. Every year as they edge closer to the chase they talk about driver "X", who needs only to finish 32nd to assure a spot in the chase. At some point soon we'll be hearing what Jeff or Jimmy needs to do at a minimum to win the championship.

Were it not for all the media exposure we might still have races where everyone went for the win.

That has to be one of the most profound posts I have read on this forum.
Perhaps you're right, and perhaps I have drank the Kool-Aid subconsciously.

"Big picture" racing ... Let's just ride around and ensure a top-five finish all season. That'll get us the Cup.

Shame on me!



Let's go back to the bumping and wrecking for the win! Oh, wait a minute ... that'll cause NASCAR fines and angry fans. Just can't win, can I?





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb095&pp=ZN

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

The point of your post Bob that I most agree with is the one about running to win the race and not the championship. The media has turned this sport into viewer entertainment versus racing and having spectators. This whole championship thing, in all sports, is way out of control.

Probably more so than most sports, NASCAR teams can run for points versus running for the win. Every year as they edge closer to the chase they talk about driver "X", who needs only to finish 32nd to assure a spot in the chase. At some point soon we'll be hearing what Jeff or Jimmy needs to do at a minimum to win the championship.

Were it not for all the media exposure we might still have races where everyone went for the win.

Not just NASCAR runs for points.

I now the FIA World Touring Car Championship is also interested in points.
There a winner gets weight penalties and a 8 spot qualification grid penalty for the the next race. So he must settle for the points until rivals take wins/podiums and therefor also get weight and grid penalties so he can now once more challenge for wins/podiums.


Even more, in Formula 1 (team) points equal money. The winner of the World Constructor Championship gets up to 60 million dollars and has to pay the least for transportation costs. So the WCC points is where the money is, cause you simultaniously get more and pay less.


So its far from being a NASCAR thing.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

I don't think you're being argumentative at all. You have this uncanny ability to disagree with someone, or counter an opinion with tact and without being confrontational or combative. That's pretty rare.

Thank you for the kind words, Penny. There are many (possibly some here) who would disagree violently with your view.

I generally have two desires with my posts:

I love to debate but not necessarily to convert people to my point of view (my tab line is absolutely germane). I just want others to think about an alternative view.

I want to gather points of view other than my own because I sincerely believe in the philosophy that one never learns anything from anyone they agree with.

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Thank you for the kind words, Penny. There are many (possibly some here) who would disagree violently with your view.

I generally have two desires with my posts:

I love to debate but not necessarily to convert people to my point of view (my tab line is absolutely germane). I just want others to think about an alternative view.

I want to gather points of view other than my own because I sincerely believe in the philosophy that one never learns anything from anyone they agree with.

Well put. In business, there is a relative saying that I may have posted before. "If you have two employees who always agree with each other, you don't need both of them."

Looking back on this Thread, I think I've misrepresented myself in the quest for the Cup. Win races, and the Cup will come. Do your damnedest to win, but finish second, and the Cup will come. Go for the win at all costs, finish well consistently, and the Cup will come. Don't focus on the Cup. Focus on finishing the best you can. Be the best, and the Cup will come ... naturally. Focus on the race you are running, not the big picture you are chasing.

Any driver who is happy to be mediocre in pursuit of the Cup is not a racer. I want to see my Champion earn it with hard racing and wins.

[DOF_power]

>



^ It's relative. I think its more like go for the victory when/if you can, go for the maximum of points if you can't.

But there isn't a big enough gap between 1st, 2nd and 3rd. It makes even the somewhat criticized F1/DTM system look good.
A 10, 8, 6 point system means that no.2 gets 80% of victor's point, and 3rd places 60%.

Witch would translate into:
1st = 185 points
2nd = 148 points
3rd = 111 points

And the prize money could also be split to the same percentages.

So would it be better ?!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Thank you for the kind words, Penny. There are many (possibly some here) who would disagree violently with your view.

I generally have two desires with my posts:

I love to debate but not necessarily to convert people to my point of view (my tab line is absolutely germane). I just want others to think about an alternative view.

I want to gather points of view other than my own because I sincerely believe in the philosophy that one never learns anything from anyone they agree with.

Now we're on the same page. (Basically we probably were all along; we were just saying it in different ways)

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

>



^ It's relative. I think its more like go for the victory when/if you can, go for the maximum of points if you can't.

But there isn't a big enough gap between 1st, 2nd and 3rd. It makes even the somewhat criticized F1/DTM system look good.
A 10, 8, 6 point system means that no.2 gets 80% of victor's point, and 3rd places 60%.

Witch would translate into:
1st = 185 points
2nd = 148 points
3rd = 111 points

And the prize money could also be split to the same percentages.

So would it be better ?!

That has been one of my bigger complaint about this RJR sculptured NASCAR since Latford came up with the current point system; not enough of a gap between 1st : 2nd, and 2nd : 3rd. I understand Latford's thinking; if you have fewer point between finishing positions then it is reasonable to assume that you will automatically have close finishes in final standings.

When you are dealing with the number of human variables you have in sports standings, Latford's assumption is a mathematical absurdity.

Example (just one though I can think of many): NASCAR infused the playoff concept into its points race to assure close finishes. However, which Series has the closest points race this season? CTS. The lead has swapped back and forth between Skinner and Hornaday and as of this morning the spread is a slight 14 points!

Example: Look how the F1 points system is set up yet how many close points races have they had in F1 in the past 20 years? Not near as many as they have had runaways, I believe.

[DOF_power]

The 10 - 8 - 6 has only been used since 2003.
Before 9-6-4 + best out of 9 ( + top/chosen 30 pre-qualification non sense)
9 - 6 - 4 best out of 11
10 - 6 - 4
and now 10 - 8 - 6
in the early years of F1 there was a 8-6-4 best out of 6/7, and before WWII a 1-2-3-4 system with whomever has fewer points wins.

Since the 10 - 8 - 6 was introduced only 2004 was a get away season while the rest (2003, 3005, 2006, 2007) were contested, and 2003/2006/2007 went down to the wire/last race with 2 points difference in 2003 and 1 point difference in 2007.


For NASCAR I'd go for the 185 - 148 - 111 system.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

The 10 - 8 - 6 has only been used since 2003.
Before 9-6-4 + best out of 9 ( + top/chosen 30 pre-qualification non sense)
9 - 6 - 4 best out of 11
10 - 6 - 4
and now 10 - 8 - 6
in the early years of F1 there was a 8-6-4 best out of 6/7, and before WWII a 1-2-3-4 system with whomever has fewer points wins.

Since the 10 - 8 - 6 was introduced only 2004 was a get away season while the rest (2003, 3005, 2006, 2007) were contested, and 2003/2006/2007 went down to the wire/last race with 2 points difference in 2003 and 1 point difference in 2007.


For NASCAR I'd go for the 185 - 148 - 111 system.

You've made my point, DOF. There are points systems equally or even more confusing than NASCAR's. The one thread that connects all these sophisticated point systems together is that they are confusing and hard to explain in a simple, concise manner to someone not familiar with the Series.

Example: "Hi Mr. 'Know-Nothing-About NASCAR,' here is a simple explanation of NASCAR's point system. First it is possible for the person who comes in second in a race to earn the same number of points the winner gets, through bonus points for simply leading a lap and leading the most laps in the race. Here is the way the points break down...[give point values for 1st thru 43place].
Now, the season is thirty-six weeks long but after twenty-six weeks the top twelve are all given 5000 points and the points they have earned during the first twenty-six weeks are all taken away. Everyone else keeps their earned points. Finally everyone of the top twelve are given ten points for each win they had had during the season. Winners who aren't in the top twelve lose this ten point bonus. Simple, eh?
Now let me explain the owner's point system..."

I've followed NASCAR for years and Hell, I'm not sure I fully understand the entire thing! I can only imagine a neophyte running screaming from the room longing for something simple, like quantum mathematics.

[DOF_power]

"There are points systems equally or even more confusing than NASCAR's. The one thread that connects all these sophisticated point systems together is that they are confusing and hard to explain in a simple, concise manner to someone not familiar with the Series."


Precisely Bob, and even to those familiar it's a headake and feels stupid.
But if you think that's bad imagine how it would be to be in the shoes of those
who because of such stupid systems when they should have won.

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Example: "Hi Mr. 'Know-Nothing-About NASCAR,' here is a simple explanation of NASCAR's point system. First it is possible for the person who comes in second in a race to earn the same number of points the winner gets, through bonus points for simply leading a lap and leading the most laps in the race. Here is the way the points break down...[give point values for 1st thru 43place].
Now, the season is thirty-six weeks long but after twenty-six weeks the top twelve are all given 5000 points and the points they have earned during the first twenty-six weeks are all taken away. Everyone else keeps their earned points. Finally everyone of the top twelve are given ten points for each win they had had during the season. Winners who aren't in the top twelve lose this ten point bonus. Simple, eh?
Now let me explain the owner's point system..."

Christ! That even confused me! And when you put it all down like that ...



... what a freakin' circus!
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

Christ! That even confused me! And when you put it all down like that ...



... what a freakin' circus!
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN

Penny, I have learned over many years of screwing up (and believe me, I've screwed up with zero's on the end!) that when you are dealing with statistics, if you want credibility with the people who are depending on those stats (and standings are just statistics), the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) method is the way to go in 95% of the cases.

NASCAR's point systems fails this parameter miserably, IMNSVHO.

[wingkey1]

it is possible for the person who comes in second in a race to earn the same number of points the winner gets, through bonus points for simply leading a lap and leading the most laps in the race - do believe this is not accurate and was fixed few years back by increasing the win points by 10 (maybe 5 - would have to explore for accuracy). Appears indeed to be 10.

This (the above mentioned) 10 points is not the 10 points that come in to play in the 10 race consolation event (some refer to it as the "Chase") after the real championship is determined. Example: The 2007 Championship has been determined and awarded. The 6th for this years winner. The consolation event for the 1st through 11th losers is now in progress. The years Champion is also invited to participate in the Consolation event. Perhaps to give the losers a second shot? Well that ain't workin' out so well this year. The losers are being made to look like REAL losers. Hmmmmm --- gonna have to make a change to this for next year. Maybe the consolation event should be closed to the yearly Champion. Let's try that bandaid.

[Quality88]

Anyone else noticed that Gordo is winnin the title just like many champions have.... with consistency. I thought the chase was suppost to eliminate that?