[loco4pablo]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I like you schedule EXCEPT I would leave Charlotte with a single race and give a race to Nashville or the New Jersey Motor Sports Complex. Or take California completely off the schedule and give dates to the two I suggested or some other tracks in areas where there are deserving NASCAR fans. Naw. Now that I think about it, Charlotte is NA__AR's hub. I guess they deserve two races, even if the track is Cookie Cutter #1.

I have a feeling you and I agree on a lot of things. You just get tired of my rants. That's OK. When it comes to things I love and something happening to those things I disagree with, acceptance isn't one of my strong points. Kind of like our forefathers when they'd had enough of King George's taxation. They did a lot of ranting to, even in the face of those (Tories) who told them, "Why are you always complaining? You can change anything." (No! I'm NOT comparing myself to Thomas Jeffrson or Thomas Paine. It's the principle)

'Nuff said...

I look at the schedule as a kind of Law of Supply and Demand. The more things you put on the market, the cheaper they become and they are valued less. Lots of zirconium on the market and they aren't worth squat. Not a lot of cut diamonds and their price is up there. In 2000 Chevrolet produced 547,294 vehicles Cadillac made 158,944 in the same year U.S. Automobile Production Figures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Which one would the average person prefer to own? You get the point.

If NA__AR would cut the number of races and shorten the races the product would be more in demand and we'd see sellouts once more, even in these bad economic times. People will always find ways to pay to be entertained IF that entertainment is good enough and in short supply.

You said it perfectly Bob...SUPPLY AND DEMAND! We are so over saturated with NASCAR 10 months out of the year the demand is really decreasing!
Of course NASCAR would never go back to a 29 race schedule because they got more $$ from the networks because they have more races in the package. That won't change until the networks say "we ain't paying that much" then they won't have a choice other then cut some races.

Also they won't cut races because selling 60,000 tickets for each race at Fontana is still better then selling 90,000 once.. So really how much do you think NASCAR really cares about empty seats? You will know when they start caring..they will then change!

I don't get seriously tired of your rants, I like busting chops too!!
Maybe Oboma will have us on the lawn for a beer!!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by loco4pablo

Also they won't cut races because selling 60,000 tickets for each race at Fontana is still better then selling 90,000 once.. So really how much do you think NASCAR really cares about empty seats? You will know when they start caring..they will then change!

I don't get seriously tired of your rants, I like busting chops too!!
Maybe Oboma will have us on the lawn for a beer!!

I think that NA__AR cares about the empty seats at two levels:
(1) Empty seats at ISC tracks mean less income. They offset this at tracks like California by using the track as a advertising venue, thus a loss in income came be manipulated to becoming a full tax deduction. Tracks owned by Dover Motor Sports, the Mattioli's and the Hulman's aren't their concern, money-wise. ISC gets the majority of its money up front and the track owners eat the empty seats.

(2) Empty seats hurt NA__AR is image. That's why there is an agreement that TV cameras do NOT focus on empty stands except only when necessary. It's kind of like a fight in the NFL. When I watched football whenever someone threw a punch and one was returned, the camera immediately went to the cheerleaders or to a commercial. (Do they still do that?)

The problem is that to rectify the situation NA__AR would have to male sweeping changes. Historically that is something NA__AR does only as a last resort. As long as the France Family controls the boardroom and controls the sport itself, nothing, absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G will change. To make sweeping changes would be to admit that doing has been being done wrong and the France Family's ego is much to fragile to make an admission like that.

But, that's just my take and I'm sure there are good opposing viewpoints. I'd be open to change if someone could convince me otherwise.

As to the party on the lawn... Not my style. I don't smoke menthol's and I don't drink Schlitz Malt Liquor, so I'd be kind of a square peg in a round hole. But, thank you kindly for thinking of me.

[bob101]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Bob can you explain this concept in a little more depth ? Are you talking about moving from 3rd to 2nd in points standings ??? or just the race itself. If it is just the race are you talking about the team that starts in 3rd ?

Right now in a race if you are 35th on the last lap and pass a guy to finish 34th you gain 3 points in that race.

If you are running 2nd in a race on the last lap and pass a guy to win, you gain 3 points for winning over where you would have finished in 2nd.

I'd rather see the point system rewarded in each race non linear - IE weighted more toward the top.

So if on the last lap you were running 5th and passed a guy to finish 4th you would gain say 10 points (or whatever it would have to be worked out)....where a guy who was running 35th and passed one guy would gain the old 3 points.

That way the push is to finish first each and every week.

Winning IS EVERYTHING...or at least it used to be. Now it's about running consistent and not making a mistake one week or whatever.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

Right now in a race if you are 35th on the last lap and pass a guy to finish 34th you gain 3 points in that race.

If you are running 2nd in a race on the last lap and pass a guy to win, you gain 3 points for winning over where you would have finished in 2nd.

I'd rather see the point system rewarded in each race non linear - IE weighted more toward the top.

So if on the last lap you were running 5th and passed a guy to finish 4th you would gain say 10 points (or whatever it would have to be worked out)....where a guy who was running 35th and passed one guy would gain the old 3 points.

That way the push is to finish first each and every week.

Winning IS EVERYTHING...or at least it used to be. Now it's about running consistent and not making a mistake one week or whatever.

Bob, I believe that I have a basic grasp of what your non linear point system would look like. I'm solidly behind you. ANYTHING NA__AR would do to reward performance and not discount but have a lesser reward for consistency would be an improvement. No argument from me on that whatsoever.

Latford's format was good in 1972 before the entire focus of the season was on the championship. That was also a time when drivers and team owners put a very high priority on winning. Now, the format just emphasises consistency and consistency too often equals boring.

The thing about your non-linear point system is that it might tend to be confusing and hard to understand, such as the point system of 1970 was. If you could come up with a non-linear point system which was easy to understand, simple for a layman to figure in his/her head, and "Tanner-proof" (I confuse easily), then you'd have a winning ticket, if only NA__AR would buy it.

[LSC9901]

OK so I understand your final lap scenario. Is there yet another points system for the rest of the race or is all the scoring done on the last lap ?

[HendrickMoto]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Why does this keep coming up. "Could'a, Would'a, Should'a" talk is mute! It is what it is! We are operating under the chase format! The old point system is just that "the old system"! Why don't you go back to the old old [2 generations back] system or even farther? You may eventually find one that puts someone in front of JJ.

JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY, JIMMY!!

CAN YOU SAY "FOUR -PEAT"!!!

Come on guys, I've heard more realistic arguments from diehard College BB fans when their school doesn't win the final 4. As racing fan professionals, one would expect more.

Lets try this approach. Name the top 3 things that you would do for next year to keep JJ from winning again.

1]
2]
3]

1] Change the Chase tracks
2] Get rid of Cheatin' Chad
3] Stop playing favorites

[BrianFranceFan]

Originally Posted by loco4pablo

Brian you are kind of new here so let me tell ya, get use to it. You will hear it all here.
Members hate restrictor plate racing like last week, but they hate cookie cutter tracks more. They hate the chase but not as much as the COT. They can't stand Jimmy Johnson but not as much as Kyle Busch....It's actually quite comical sometimes

Yes...like Robert said, I have been around here for quite some time....and I have seen the complaints one week about something, and then complaints about the complete opposite the next week. I have always been one of the only people here who didn't complain about the sport.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BrianFranceFan

Yes...like Robert said, I have been around here for quite some time....and I have seen the complaints one week about something, and then complaints about the complete opposite the next week. I have always been one of the only people here who didn't complain about the sport.

That means then, by your silence, that you accept this stuff that NA__AR is putting out. You possibly even like it. That's perfectly OK. There are those who like Hip-Hop and Rap, and some souls even think that it's music. It's all a matter of taste.

But convincing us that this can of Spam, which NA__AR is trying to feed to us as stock car racing is really fillet mignon, is a losing cause from the git-go.

To paraphrase Justice Stewart Potter - the phrase notably appeared in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), decided by the United States Supreme Court. - "I may not be able to define good stock car racing, but I know it when I see it." In today's NA__AR Cup racing I don't see anything, in the vast majority of the events, which comes close.

It's like the kid who comes to your door trick or treating. He may be dressed like a pirate but you know that he's just a kid and just pretending to be one. If you want to believe that there is a real, honest-to-goodness pirate standing there in front of you demanding candy, that's OK. There is room for all.

[bob101]

It would be any lap. I just used last lap as an example.

Basically it would be something like this.

1st - 250 points
2nd - 230 points
3rd - 215 points
4th - 200 points
etc...
30th - 50 points
31st - 47 points
32nd - 45 points

Make it scale dramatically toward the top end. In my fantasy example first is worth 20 points MORE than 2nd while 31st is only worth 2 points more than 32nd.

Make everyone on the race track want every posistion. Not ride around and call it safe.

Make wins much more important than finishing 10th every week.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

It would be any lap. I just used last lap as an example.

Basically it would be something like this.

1st - 250 points
2nd - 230 points
3rd - 215 points
4th - 200 points
etc...
30th - 50 points
31st - 47 points
32nd - 45 points

Make it scale dramatically toward the top end. In my fantasy example first is worth 20 points MORE than 2nd while 31st is only worth 2 points more than 32nd.

Make everyone on the race track want every posistion. Not ride around and call it safe.

Make wins much more important than finishing 10th every week.

OK, I gotcha. I think you and I are thinking basically the same way, just working with different points. I was thinking 25 pts between 1st and 2nd, 20 -2nd to 3rd, 15 - 3rd to 4th, 10 - 4th to 5th, 5pts each between 6th to 10th, 4 pts between 11th and 15th, and 3 pts between 16th and last point paying position (My figure was 25th or 30th).
But you're 100% correct. (1) This business of points racing, which the minor differences in the current point system encourages point racing. (2) Paying to the last position encourages cars which are wrecks and don't belong on the track just motoring around, hoping to pick up 3-6-9 points is just as bad. Both contribute nothing to the racing.

Latford's system was good when they began it in 1972. The drivers of that era prized winning more than collecting points and the current quality of racing proves that. But instead they push the number of cars finishing on the lead lap and number of lead changes (neither necessarily has anything to do with actual racing) So now we have a generation of fans who believe that what we have now is about as good as it gets.

The thing that bugs me the most about the new system is that if a team works their butts off the first 25 races, nascar should not come up and erase the lead that they worked so hard to get. Jimmie Johnson has become the new golden boy of racing just like Jeff Gordon was bach in the 90's. The Champion should be crowned for consistency throughout the whole season, not just the last handful of races.

[bob101]

Yeah I just threw up a quick example. Whoever does it would ahve to come up with a good curve from 1 to 43.

Point being shift the important to winning and/or finishing ahead of the next guy rather than consistency.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

Yeah I just threw up a quick example. Whoever does it would ahve to come up with a good curve from 1 to 43.

Point being shift the important to winning and/or finishing ahead of the next guy rather than consistency.

Abso-freaking-lutely!

[nascaraddict]

The point system just is a "if ya don't like it this way; we'll screw it up that way" propasition.

[nascaraddict]

Just pick one point system. Then Rick Hendrick, and Chad Kanous will find a way to cheat to win.