Poll: Chase/No Chase

[slorydn1]

Please vote in the pole and if you want to , explain why you think that way

[slorydn1]

I voted for no chase because I feel that the season champion should be the driver that performs the best over the course of the entire season . I do believe that the winner of a race should be awarded the lions share of the points. Giving the winner 200 points and then adding the lap leader bonus would go a long way towards that. This way if p1 leads the most laps and p2 doesn't lead any you are looking at 210-170, or a 40 point swing. If p2 leads the most laps, then you have 205-180, or a 25 point swing. Thats a far cry from the old Winston Cup days when the winner and second place driver could (and often did) tie at 180 points a piece if p2 led the most laps.

This was the adjustment that most people had been screaming for during the 2003 season while Matt Kenseth was cruising to an easy Championship while only winning one race.

What do you think?

[Sparky1329]

I voted for no chase format. I think the race winner should be awarded extra points but 200 is too many. I'm not sure what number I like.

[00steven]

I would like to see a new simpler points system but definetely no chase. I want to see consistency and wins awarded, not getting hot at the right time.

[Mr. Mister]

Any championship format will produce close battles and not-so-close ones, so, whether it be boring or exciting, at least crown a real champion.

I voted for using the F1 points system in theory, but it would need to be somewhat adapted for a bigger grid. Why only award points for the top x positions? Well, it sort of eliminates points racing, and would really make drivers try extra hard to get into the points-paying positions I don't think someone should be able to DNF or start and park and score points. It would allow drivers to take risks, and an emphasis would be placed on winning. I know some will say it's "unfair" to the guy finishing in the x-1 position, but that's just competition...they can't all be winners! I also think some of the smaller teams would be able to focus their resources on a limited schedule to actually score rather than ride around in the back and park when they have no sponsor. Theoretically, a team could run just one race and score 25, and another could run 36 and score 0...so some teams would be able to save money and just compete in the events they know they can score in.

Obviously, the whole "top 35" stuff would need to be eliminated under this format.

[harvick#1]

Classic Points, the season is about consistency and not just about wins.

the last "true" champion proved that in 2003 that you can only win 1 race and still dominate a driver that won 7-8.

[wbcobrar]

Classic points, Mr. Harvick#1 I have never agreed with any statement more. :wave:

[muggle not]

Classic Points, the season is about consistency and not just about wins.

the last "true" champion proved that in 2003 that you can only win 1 race and still dominate a driver that won 7-8.
I'm with you on this one. Classic points gets my vote.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Classic Points, the season is about consistency and not just about wins.

the last "true" champion proved that in 2003 that you can only win 1 race and still dominate a driver that won 7-8.

so finishing 5th is more exciting than forcing people to try to win? You guys are not serious!??

We want guys trying to win. In that last 10 chase races, winning races means you likely win the championship.

Too many people have rose coloured glasses about the past championships.

How many actually were not settled by the time the series got into the last 10 races? Maybe one in 4...

No sorry, A guy who is good all year and then turns it on in the chase is no different than a team in any other sport hanging in there all season but then is forced to perform.

Under the old system, you could limp along, win the championship maybe with ONE win, ( as Terry Labonte did in his first) while guys like Rusty and Dale were winning 10 races. Who had more fans? Not Terry ( and god knows I loved the guy ) but Dale.

Earnhardt wasn't the man he was because he won the championships by stroking...he did it by winning races. The fact is, Slorydn's upping the points for wins is a good thing, so I might consider a format like that, but I do think the Chase forces us to watch not just the top guys all season, but to watch that elimination of drivers for the last 12 spots. I would make it 10 personally....but I don't see anything wrong with what we have. Sorry guys, I am not buying the logic. I remember to many seasons where the fall races were an afterthought as someone marched to the title and it was clear they were not going to be caught...

You make a race winner get 200 points and a second place guy get 180...you might see even greater walkovers..not less.

[Alexamateo]

.........

Under the old system, you could limp along, win the championship maybe with ONE win, ( as Terry Labonte did in his first) while guys like Rusty and Dale were winning 10 races. Who had more fans? Not Terry ( and god knows I loved the guy ) but Dale.

.........

Actually Terry won two races in his championship season. I voted for a different point structure, because for me the flaw in this system was/is punishing a bad finish more than it rewards a good finish.

I've posted t before on this but look at Terry Labonte's 1996 championship season. 2 wins, 21 top 5, and 24 top 10's in a 31 race season. (great year), versus Jeff Gordon's 10 wins, 21 top 5's and 24 top 10's.

Terry won the championship because in the 7 races he had a dnf or trouble, it was late in the race and he finished in the 20's, while in the 7 races Jeff had a dnf or trouble, it was early in the race and he finished in the 30's, and in fact two were in the 40's.

So when push came to shove Jeff won, (10 wins, 17 top 3) while Terry settled for a top 5, (2 wins, 14 top 3), yet Jeff finishing well was not rewarded so much as his bad finishes were punished.

My solution would be to keep the same basic structure but have a floor at 31st of 70 points (31-43 all score 70 points) For the top 5, 5th would remain at 155 points, 4th - 165 points, 3rd - 180 points, 2nd - 200 points, 1st - 225 points. Bonus points would stay the same.

An alternative solution was proposed by Jonesi (I believe) to only count "X" # of races. Like Early Formula 1, only the best "X" # of finishes counted towards your final total. In Nascar we could count only the top 32 finishes for instance, that way Jeff Gordon finishing 42nd in the Daytona 500 really doesn't hurt him in the long run.

[Jonesi]

My solution would be to keep the same basic structure but have a floor at 31st of 70 points (31-43 all score 70 points) For the top 5, 5th would remain at 155 points, 4th - 165 points, 3rd - 180 points, 2nd - 200 points, 1st - 225 points. Bonus points would stay the same.

An alternative solution was proposed by Jonesi (I believe) to only count "X" # of races. Like Early Formula 1, only the best "X" # of finishes counted towards your final total. In Nascar we could count only the top 32 finishes for instance, that way Jeff Gordon finishing 42nd in the Daytona 500 really doesn't hurt him in the long run.

Yes it was me, thanks for remembering. I still think it's the best solution.
I too would tweak the points a little giving a few more point for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and tighten them up at the bottom so 35th-43rd are only 1 point apart.

[Alexamateo]

Yes it was me, thanks for remembering. I still think it's the best solution.
I too would tweak the points a little giving a few more point for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and tighten them up at the bottom so 35th-43rd are only 1 point apart.

I think that's a viable solution too, and it may even be better as far as the drivers are concerned. They could even ~shudder~ take a week off if they so desired. :p

[call_me_andrew]

I voted for something new because the way points are awarded alone stinks.

[harvick#1]

We want guys trying to win. In that last 10 chase races, winning races means you likely win the championship.

Too many people have rose coloured glasses about the past championships.

How many actually were not settled by the time the series got into the last 10 races? Maybe one in 4...

No sorry, A guy who is good all year and then turns it on in the chase is no different than a team in any other sport hanging in there all season but then is forced to perform.

Under the old system, you could limp along, win the championship maybe with ONE win, ( as Terry Labonte did in his first) while guys like Rusty and Dale were winning 10 races. Who had more fans? Not Terry ( and god knows I loved the guy ) but Dale.

Earnhardt wasn't the man he was because he won the championships by stroking...he did it by winning races. The fact is, Slorydn's upping the points for wins is a good thing, so I might consider a format like that, but I do think the Chase forces us to watch not just the top guys all season, but to watch that elimination of drivers for the last 12 spots. I would make it 10 personally....but I don't see anything wrong with what we have. Sorry guys, I am not buying the logic. I remember to many seasons where the fall races were an afterthought as someone marched to the title and it was clear they were not going to be caught...

You make a race winner get 200 points and a second place guy get 180...you might see even greater walkovers..not less.


under the old system, there was no real limping along, the driver that Dominated the season won, this year is no different, while Gordon hasnt won and Harvick has 2 wins, they both have more top 5's and top 10's than Hamlin and Johnson who have 5 wins.

while they haven't won as many races as them, they have both fought for wins just about every week.

The Chase basically put more merit in 10 races with very little prestige than the Daytona 500, Coke 600, Firecracker 400, and Brickyard 400. when there was no "chase" everyrace had meaning, and everyrace had something to earn. but now attendance is down because the fans basically dont wanna pay for an overpriced ticket and food/beverages, along with a hotel bill, and especially ones in the first 26 races cause they know there is very little meaning to the event.

yeah some years, the classic points would producer snoozers, but the 02 season went down to the wire. and the F1 seasons in 07 and 08 were down to the final race and laps, and even WRC last season went down to the final Rally at a deadlock in points. there is no need for "playoffs" in motorsports" we are not stick and ball sports, we are something else and we dont need to copy their systems

[call_me_andrew]

under the old system, there was no real limping along, the driver that Dominated the season won, this year is no different, while Gordon hasnt won and Harvick has 2 wins, they both have more top 5's and top 10's than Hamlin and Johnson who have 5 wins.

while they haven't won as many races as them, they have both fought for wins just about every week.

The Chase basically put more merit in 10 races with very little prestige than the Daytona 500, Coke 600, Firecracker 400, and Brickyard 400. when there was no "chase" everyrace had meaning, and everyrace had something to earn. but now attendance is down because the fans basically dont wanna pay for an overpriced ticket and food/beverages, along with a hotel bill, and especially ones in the first 26 races cause they know there is very little meaning to the event.

yeah some years, the classic points would producer snoozers, but the 02 season went down to the wire. and the F1 seasons in 07 and 08 were down to the final race and laps, and even WRC last season went down to the final Rally at a deadlock in points. there is no need for "playoffs" in motorsports" we are not stick and ball sports, we are something else and we dont need to copy their systems

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually Terry won two races in his championship season. I voted for a different point structure, because for me the flaw in this system was/is punishing a bad finish more than it rewards a good finish.

I've posted t before on this but look at Terry Labonte's 1996 championship season. 2 wins, 21 top 5, and 24 top 10's in a 31 race season. (great year), versus Jeff Gordon's 10 wins, 21 top 5's and 24 top 10's.

Terry won the championship because in the 7 races he had a dnf or trouble, it was late in the race and he finished in the 20's, while in the 7 races Jeff had a dnf or trouble, it was early in the race and he finished in the 30's, and in fact two were in the 40's.

So when push came to shove Jeff won, (10 wins, 17 top 3) while Terry settled for a top 5, (2 wins, 14 top 3), yet Jeff finishing well was not rewarded so much as his bad finishes were punished.

My solution would be to keep the same basic structure but have a floor at 31st of 70 points (31-43 all score 70 points) For the top 5, 5th would remain at 155 points, 4th - 165 points, 3rd - 180 points, 2nd - 200 points, 1st - 225 points. Bonus points would stay the same.

An alternative solution was proposed by Jonesi (I believe) to only count "X" # of races. Like Early Formula 1, only the best "X" # of finishes counted towards your final total. In Nascar we could count only the top 32 finishes for instance, that way Jeff Gordon finishing 42nd in the Daytona 500 really doesn't hurt him in the long run.

In his 1984 season (?), Terry won but one race. Yes he did it the same way, but you had guys winning races left and right.

Listen, I get what you are going on about with different formula, but the point has to be made over and over again that the reason NASCAR put the chase in was to make sure that no matter how good you were all season, you had to perform when the pressure was on, and you had to not fend off one or two challengers, but up to 11. They needed to do something to put their sport on the front of sports sections during the fall when the NFL was sucking up all the attention, not to mention the Pennant races in MLB.

With all of that, you now have a system where 12 guys who are the best throughout the first 26 races now have a run at the big prize. The reality is, only maybe 3 have a shot, and they are the same 3 guys who would likely have been in the running for the top 3 anyhow if there was no chase. All the Chase does is make the top guys have to perform at a different level in the last 10. No room for error...no room for a bad finish. It makes it tougher in a sense, and it keeps us talking about people in spots 5 through 15. No one gave a rats behind about those guys before...and now they are in the spotlight. Tell me how much that has helped sponsors....

[Alexamateo]

Terry won two races in his 1984 championship season also.

http://www.racing-reference.info/yeardet/1984/W

The point still stands in the chase, a bad finish is punished more than a good finish is rewarded.

I actually Thought the chase was going to be used as a way to expand the schedule and not kill the teams (Run east and west divisions with some overlap (Daytona/Indy, etc). They could expand to Europe or Mexico and have divisions qualify and send drivers to the championship (not 10 of course but maybe two or three)

After a few years though, It just seems like it was at the beginning, just thrown together, the chase races are there just because they happen to be there at the end of the schedule, with no particular rhyme or reason.

In a way, I think it hurts, because it takes away from the event feel that that races used to have back when only two or three actually worried about the Championship at this time of the season.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Terry won two races in his 1984 championship season also.

http://www.racing-reference.info/yeardet/1984/W

The point still stands in the chase, a bad finish is punished more than a good finish is rewarded.

I actually Thought the chase was going to be used as a way to expand the schedule and not kill the teams (Run east and west divisions with some overlap (Daytona/Indy, etc). They could expand to Europe or Mexico and have divisions qualify and send drivers to the championship (not 10 of course but maybe two or three)

After a few years though, It just seems like it was at the beginning, just thrown together, the chase races are there just because they happen to be there at the end of the schedule, with no particular rhyme or reason.

In a way, I think it hurts, because it takes away from the event feel that that races used to have back when only two or three actually worried about the Championship at this time of the season.
My memory has failed me..I was sure it was only 1. I remember my roommate at school in first year railing against Terry because he wasn't a "Racer" but a points chaser".

Under the chase, you can race a little in the first 26 and you better race a lot in the last 10. There is no points racing really if you are in the top 6, and if you are in the bottom 6 of the top 12 after May, maybe you are points racing, but it is a tough thing to do.....

[NaBUru38]

With such a large grid, my perfect points scale for the top finishers is 20-14-12-11-10 (or multiples). From 20th onwards, the points scale should be very flat, but not completely.


the F1 seasons in 07 and 08 were down to the final race and laps, and even WRC last season went down to the final Rally at a deadlock in points. there is no need for "playoffs" in motorsports" we are not stick and ball sports, we are something else and we dont need to copy their systems
Nascar is very different to F1, WRC and MotoGP. First of all, the calendar is much longer, which increases the chances of early champions. The Chase for the Cup causes side effects but prevents the original disease. Secondly, the grids are much larger, so it's reasonable to give points to everyone, or drivers fighing for 20th-30th would quit. That's why Nascar needs a different system to the usual ones in Europe and South America.


look at Terry Labonte's 1996 championship season. 2 wins, 21 top 5, and 24 top 10's in a 31 race season. (great year), versus Jeff Gordon's 10 wins, 21 top 5's and 24 top 10's.

Terry won the championship because in the 7 races he had a dnf or trouble, it was late in the race and he finished in the 20's, while in the 7 races Jeff had a dnf or trouble, it was early in the race and he finished in the 30's, and in fact two were in the 40's.

So when push came to shove Jeff won, (10 wins, 17 top 3) while Terry settled for a top 5, (2 wins, 14 top 3), yet Jeff finishing well was not rewarded so much as his bad finishes were punished.
According to your description, Jeff Gordon deserved to be champion.


Like Early Formula 1, only the best "X" # of finishes counted towards your final total. In Nascar we could count only the top 32 finishes for instance, that way Jeff Gordon finishing 42nd in the Daytona 500 really doesn't hurt him in the long run.
Dropping four or six results would work, but not too much.

[slorydn1]

Originally Posted by Alexamateo http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=822105#post822105)
look at Terry Labonte's 1996 championship season. 2 wins, 21 top 5, and 24 top 10's in a 31 race season. (great year), versus Jeff Gordon's 10 wins, 21 top 5's and 24 top 10's.

Terry won the championship because in the 7 races he had a dnf or trouble, it was late in the race and he finished in the 20's, while in the 7 races Jeff had a dnf or trouble, it was early in the race and he finished in the 30's, and in fact two were in the 40's.

So when push came to shove Jeff won, (10 wins, 17 top 3) while Terry settled for a top 5, (2 wins, 14 top 3), yet Jeff finishing well was not rewarded so much as his bad finishes were punished.



Actually, my example of giving the race winner a baseline of 200 pts (before the lap leader bonus(es) are added in)
would have rectified this situation.

Labonte scored 4657 points to Gordon's 4620.... meaning that Gordon lost by a mere 37 points.

If the baseline had been increased to 200 pts (over the 175 it was back then, its now 185) then that would have added 25 pts per race win.

Add 50 pts to T-Lab's total and 250 pts to Jeffroleum's total and the outcome would have been very different, to wit:

Gordon 4870 to Labonte 4707, or a 163 point advantage for Gordon.

Even using today's 185 point baseline, it would be Gordon 4720-4677 over Labonte, or 43 points in Gordon's favor.

[slorydn1]

Heck, even 2003, the very reason we are stuck with this putrid chase, although Kenseth would still have won the championship, it would only have been by 40 points over Unibrow, and we wouldn't be in this awful predicament we are in now.
Newman would have been properly rewarded for his 8 wins, although his horrible inconsistency would have still done him in, he would have finished p3, instead of p6, and Kurt Busch with his 4 wins would have had an invite to the Banquet at the Waldorf in P10 instead of watching on tv with the rest of us..

The Newman-Busch deal was even the bigger be-atch to deal with than the fact that Kenseth won after winning only one race. The top wins guy failed to finish in the top 5 in points, and the guy with the second most wins wasn't even recognized-combining that with a one win champ it became the perfect storm that got the media beating that "must have change" drum causing Brian France to ruin our sport for ever.

[Lee Roy]

I voted to keep "as is".

[71Fan]

I would have to go with None Of The Above although I'll settle for Tournament.

NASCAR needs a finale. That said, I think the best way to crown a champ would be with a season ending 4 track two-week elimination format that included anybody that shows up with a legal car.

[71Fan]

As I said, I think NASCAR needs a finale....The bigger the better...so...

As for changing the chase format....Only allow race winners in the chase. For me, that would solve any number of problems with the current format although I really don't see anybody taking the Cup as it stands without winning at least one race during the chase.

[NaBUru38]

How about this?

200-140-120-110-100 (top 5), 95-90-85-80-75 (top 10), 72-69-66-63-60 (top 15), 58-56-54-52-50 (top 20), 49-48...

No bonuses for just one lap as leader, only for the driver with most laps as leader.

[Lee Roy]

How about this?

200-140-120-110-100 (top 5), 95-90-85-80-75 (top 10), 72-69-66-63-60 (top 15), 58-56-54-52-50 (top 20), 49-48...

No bonuses for just one lap as leader, only for the driver with most laps as leader.

Anything new just pisses people off.

[djparky]

the champion should be the driver who does best over the entire season= not the one that does the best in the final twelve races

the Chase has been a crappy idea from the very start- I presume they want to manipulate it so that Jimmie Johnson doesn't keep winning and that they do whatever they need to do to get that loser Dale Jnr into contention (how about a 500 point head start??)

anything happening in tonights borefest from Pocono??

[call_me_andrew]

Anything new just pisses people off.

Given that NASCAR's "don't change anything" stategy was a total failure, the status quo pisses people off too.

[Lee Roy]

Given that NASCAR's "don't change anything" stategy was a total failure, the status quo pisses people off too.


True.