[Measure]

Basically, they are throwing out points to determine the champion.

Instead, the champion would be decided by counting up the number of wins... and then if there is still a tie, go to points as a tiebreaker only.

They're keeping the points system in place for that and for determining everything else, but the champion has to be the guy that won the most races.

If applied last year, Kyle Busch and Carl Edwards would have gone into the last race tied at 8, and Edwards would have pulled off a triumphant defeat by winning the race and the championship. (If Kyle won he'd take the championship, if Edwards did anything but win Kyle would have won on the tiebreaker)

Dustin long compiled a list of who would have won the championship the last several seasons under this system:

2008 ... new champion: Carl Edwards (9 wins) ...... actual champion Jimmie Johnson (7 wins)

2007 ... new champion: Jimmie Johnson (10 wins) ... actual champion: Jimmie Johnson

2006 ... new cahmpion: Kasey Kahne (6 wins) ......... actual champion: Jimmie Johnson (5 wins)

2005 ... new champion: Greg Biffle (6 wins) ...............actual champion: Tony Stewart (5 wins)

2004 ... new champion: Jimmie Johnson (8 wins) .... actual champion: Kurt Busch (3 wins)

2003 ... new champion: Ryan Newman (8 wins) ........ actual champion: Matt Kenseth (1 win)

2002 ... new champion: Matt Kenseth (5 wins) ............actual champion: Tony Stewart (3 wins)

2001 ... new champion: Jeff Gordon (6 wins) ..............actual champion: Jeff Gordon

2000 ... new champion: Tony Stewart (6 wins) ...........actual champion: Bobby Labonte (4 wins)

1999.... new champion: Jeff Gordon (7 wins) ............actual champion: Dale Jarrett (4 wins)

1998 ....new champion: Jeff Gordon (13 wins) ..........actual champion: Jeff Gordon

1997 ... new champion: Jeff Gordon (10 wins) ..........actual champion: Jeff Gorodn

1996... new champion: Jeff Gordon (11 wins) ..........actual champion: Terry Labonte (2 wins)

1995 ... new champion: Jeff Gordon (7 wins) ...........actual champion: Jeff Gordon



Yes, with this system, Jeff Gordon would be a 6-time champ and tied with Richard Petty for most titles (Petty would have won titles in 1963, '67, '70, '71, '74, '75 with this system). Going further back, Dale Earnhart would have won titles in only two of the 7 years he actually won championships: 1987 and '90. And, David Pearson would have won four titles (1966, '68, '73 and '76)



Fans who say they want racing should want this system. Isn't this what sports is about? Winning. You either win or lose. You don't finish fifth and collect the championship as some have. Isn't winning the best? So, wouldn't this be the best system for NASCAR?

I agree with Dustin. Let the biggest winner take home the trophy!

[Intox]

I kinda like this......but i dunno....

[disco stu]

Whereas I don't disagree, in principle, with the concept of rewarding/recognising race wins first and foremost, there are two concerns which I have about this system;

1. If we get to a point in the season where there are, say, 6 races to go and one driver is 7 wins ahead....well, it's all over isn't it? He needn't even bother (actually NONE of them need bother) turning up. Whereas, with the current system it would not be all over.

2. The point made by Measure about "winning" is valid, however, it depends on how you define "winning" doesn't it? A lot of the negative reaction to the new F1 system in this part of the world is based on the premise that the World Championship is based on a season-long performance rather than individual races.

I'm looking forawrd to seeing how it pans out, and, for me, the opinions expressed about this system and whoever benefits from it in 2009 post-season will be the real acid test.

[DOF_power]

>
^ Be carefull what you wish for cause you just might get it.



Suzuka 1990: championship leader A. Senna (6 victories that far) in the Marlboro McLaren-Honda, intentionally crashes into runner-up A. Prost's (5 victories that far) in the Ferrari, and thus wins the championship.

It wasn't the first nor last time such shenanigans happened.

[Bob Tanner]

This is an active discussion we're having over on the F1 Forum and there are some good responses there. Solid arguments, IMHO, for both sides.

But there is one question I have yet to see asked, in both forums: Why the change? What drove the powers at be to implement the revision?

My personal take is that (this surprises me) that someone, somewhere actually is hearing the fans telling them that the racing, for lack of a better word, "sucks."

What we're seeing in F1 isn't, I don't think, a well thought out plan to make a positive change, but rather a "knee-jerk" reaction, much like the reflex action of pulling your hand away from a flame. Too often knee-jerk reactions have devastating unintended consequences and create as many, or more, problems than they repair. (The new race car immediately comes to mind)

It's a symptom of the society we live in. "Screw the future; just give me an answer and a profit NOW, let the next guy worry about tomorrow."

I would rather see NA__AR, F1 and whoever, take a step back, take some time to fully analyze the problem, get some good input from experts in the field and NOT bureaucratic corporate weenies whose major concern is feathering their own bed, and make a good decision based on knowledge. not expediency. Failure to do these things is the reason big-time auto racing across the globe is in the shape its currently in. It's like gold plating a dog turd. It might look like a beautiful piece of work to the unknowing but when you scrape away the plate, the people who know will tell you that all you have is a simple piece of crap.

But, what do I know...???

[DOF_power]

>
^ Bob I agree.
Unfortunately knee-jerk reactions and self interest political-financial machinations have been tarnishing racing (and not just that) for decades now.

[nascaraddict]

I'm in the "I don't know" crowd". They left well enough alone for years. Then, all of a sudden; they've decided to start making changes every couple years?

I say, if you're going to change it; change it for good. But after that... keep your hands off of it. Because having revisions of the rules every few years is more confusing than doing taxes.

[wingkey1]

There is no "perfect" method for championship determination, i.e one that addresses all imaginable scenarios.

Having said that - Since cannot find any requirement in this (the F1 new thingy) that a team must compete in some minimum number or percentage of events, then the possibility, however slight, exists that a "winner" might emerge by simply winning every event entered, even if only as few as perhaps 5, 6, 7.

To allow open that door of possibility doesn't seem prudent (being kind here).

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

There is no "perfect" method for championship determination, i.e one that addresses all imaginable scenarios.

Having said that - Since cannot find any requirement in this (the F1 new thingy) that a team must compete in some minimum number or percentage of events, then the possibility, however slight, exists that a "winner" might emerge by simply winning every event entered, even if only as few as perhaps 5, 6, 7.

To allow open that door of possibility doesn't seem prudent (being kind here).

Why not? I think it's a good, honest question that deserves an answer.

[BigdaddyQH]

I would be in fvor of keeping the current point system, but drastically changing the numbe of points for a win. I would bump it to 25 points. Let's reward those who actually go out and win races, not just those who drie around the track cautiously in hopes of backing into a championship. I think it is rather pathetic for someone who wins 1 race to "outpoint" someone who wins 8 races.

[jks812]

Originally Posted by BigdaddyQH

I would be in fvor of keeping the current point system, but drastically changing the numbe of points for a win. I would bump it to 25 points. Let's reward those who actually go out and win races, not just those who drie around the track cautiously in hopes of backing into a championship. I think it is rather pathetic for someone who wins 1 race to "outpoint" someone who wins 8 races.

I agree, raise the points up more for winning a race. It's really sad that right now the guy leading the points has not won a race and the guy who's won 2 races is 5th in points.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by jks812

I agree, raise the points up more for winning a race. It's really sad that right now the guy leading the points has not won a race and the guy who's won 2 races is 5th in points.

What I think is disgraceful is how a driver can very possibly win the championship and win only one race, or not win a single race at all. Example: 2003 Matt Kenseth won the Cup with one win yet Ryan Newman had six wins that season?
Or 1973, when Benny Parsons won it with a single win yet David Pearson had eleven wins. Yes, I know. Pearson didn't run a full schedule and ran only 18 of 28 races. But, don't you think that something is wrong when a guy has eleven wins and doesn't even finish in the top 10 in standings? I do.

I see problems making the championship dependent solely on wins. I wholeheartedly believe that more points should be awarded to a race winner, or even the top three finishers. What they have now rewards consistency and too often consistency equals mediocre racing.
I've said it before and at the risk of being redundant I'll say again; far too much emphasis is placed on the championship and not enough on winning.

But then, I'm a geezer and don't relate to the way the new NA__AR operates as a ruling body.

[Measure]

Originally Posted by nascaraddict

I'm in the "I don't know" crowd". They left well enough alone for years. Then, all of a sudden; they've decided to start making changes every couple years?

I say, if you're going to change it; change it for good. But after that... keep your hands off of it. Because having revisions of the rules every few years is more confusing than doing taxes.

I disagree. You can look to the NFL for an example of a sport that has done nothing but improve their postion by continually adjusting the rules.

When a rule doesn't work out, they have the guts to admit they were wrong, and take it back.

But because they try a TON of things, they've been able to keep good rules in the game, and improve the sport each decade.

[Measure]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

There is no "perfect" method for championship determination, i.e one that addresses all imaginable scenarios.

Having said that - Since cannot find any requirement in this (the F1 new thingy) that a team must compete in some minimum number or percentage of events, then the possibility, however slight, exists that a "winner" might emerge by simply winning every event entered, even if only as few as perhaps 5, 6, 7.

To allow open that door of possibility doesn't seem prudent (being kind here).

Show me a race team that can guaruntee a win every time they race, and I'll be convinced that your criticism is valid. In practice, teams would still be trying every week to get one more win until they can lock up the championship...

[Intox]

Originally Posted by Measure

I disagree. You can look to the NFL for an example of a sport that has done nothing but improve their postion by continually adjusting the rules.

When a rule doesn't work out, they have the guts to admit they were wrong, and take it back.

But because they try a TON of things, they've been able to keep good rules in the game, and improve the sport each decade.

Then why do they still have there stupid sudden death overtime rule.....