New Points System?

[stymie]

Change will further point NASCAR in the right direction

"We are reviewing the points system, as we often do when there is talk about one driver having so big of a lead that it looks like the championship will be decided before the season is over." -- NASCAR's Jim Hunter

On Saturday, NASCAR vice president Jim Hunter said, "We will look at every viable option and at the end of the year apply it to the points standings and see how things might have been different."

[Doctorindy]

Sometimes I don't get it...they complain that the points system is to blame when a driver wins 10 races but loses the championship...however, they also whine when the points system is to blame when the championship is decided with two races to go...

What gives...you can't really have it both ways. If you give extra points for winning, it will only make it more of a lead to overcome, most likely wrapping up a championship earlier.

I've heard some ideas, some good some bad.

1) 5 points for the pole position (BAD)- qualifying doesn't mean anything anymore in NASCAR, fewer teams try each week these days, and very few go home week to week...all qualifying does now is determine pit position.....I wouldn't be against eleminating qualifying altogether and having points setting the entire field someday...NASCAR's fixed anyway

2) Adding more points for a win (GOOD) Right now its 175 plus 5 for leading at least a lap therefore 180...second place gets 170, and if they lead a lap they get 175, and if they lead the most (extra 5 pts.), they too get 180...there's no incentive sometimes to go for the win. I say the top 3 or 5 should increase as they go up by 10 point increments instead of 5 point increments. That way leading just one lap isn't an "equalizer."

3) Eliminating points or giving out equal points lower than 30th place. (GOOD) Get those junk cars off the track! If they can't run better than 30th, they don't need to be out there. This way drivers won't be as haphazardly going back out, because unless they get up to 30th, it doesn't matter.

I prefer awarding the same amount of points for 31-43, that way they at least don't go home with 0. It keeps you in the positive points if you race a lot of races, but never finish well. If you risk getting 0 points, you risk having teams decide not to even race every weekend if they think they're not going to do well. This way it'll put some sort of incentive for actually qualifying, rather than those who skip weekends...

4) How about eliminating the 5 points for leading a lap...only award 5 points for leading the most laps...it'll stop the silly shuffling guys do to just lead 1 single stinking lap...They say it's a reward for running well, but that's hardly the case..most of the time, guys just stay out one extra lap before they pit, hardly what I'd call running well...leading the most laps week to week at least is a show that you run well for real...

[IndyIRLman]

what doctorIndy said

[MD-IRLFAN]

#3 is the most important point made. These cars that are running 70+ laps down and way off the pace are just dangerous. A car that has body panels made out of duct tape should not be racing around a superspeedway.

[StatMan]

If every position except 1st place was worth 15 points less than it currently is, that would be a good fix.

[crashcourse]

I wouldn't change a thing.

the same point system is being used in the trucks and busch and look how close everything is. years passed it always came down to the final race. I have no problem with a steady rock solid performer with only 1-2 wins winning the championship.

I would drop the points from 43rd-31st to an equal amount to get most junk off the track but otherwise

leave it alone

[HendrikGerhardt]

I like the Latford system and everything that comes with it...

[$noopy]

I'm thinking about how some drivers dominate a race only to lose to a driver that has coasted all day to conserve fuel. I don't like fuel economy runs; I like racing. At te same time, to the winner goes the spoils.
A few suggestions for scoring changes and why;
(1) Winning the race changes to 200 points.
(2)Qualifying points for the top five qualifiers. 5-4-3-2-1(
(3)Leading a lap 5 points, but only green flag laps count.
(4)Leading the most laps 20 points.

(1) Now winning is a bigger difference than second.
(2) Now qualifying means more than track position and pit choice.
(3) Don't you get tired of some backmarker staying out under the yellow just to lead one lap for the 5 points and then pitting.
(4) Now RACING counts more and that's the name of the game.

When all these are added, the winner still gets more points than anyone else can. The racer get points for actually racing, nobody gets points for leading when there isn't any racing going on, and qualifying has some meaning even if everyone that shows up gets in the race.

I'd, also, leave the points at the rear of the field as they are because if you pass someone, no matter how far back you are, you deserve to get more points than they do. In saying that, I put the onus on NASCAR to black flag any car that can't keep up a reasonable pace after being repaired. They haven't done enough of that in the past.

Just a few of my ideas. But then, what do I know.

[Doctorindy]

Originally posted by $noopy
I'd, also, leave the points at the rear of the field as they are because if you pass someone, no matter how far back you are, you deserve to get more points than they do.

That's OK, but the one thing I don't like is when you have, say, "THE BIG ONE" and 10 cars get eliminiated about halfway through. I say, that's it. If they're out, they're out. I don't like seeing 'the big one,' the about an hour later, one car with duct tape on the side for the number, going out just to complete ONE LAP just so they can move ahead in the standings...

[StatMan]

The problem with a certain # of positions being worth the same amount, is that some races only a few guys DNF, and if, say positions 31-43 are all the same point value, guys 31-35 might only be one or two laps down and it should still matter which ones can outrace the other. Plus racing is a team sport, so DNFing after 375 miles and finishing 38th is better team performance than DNFing after 50 miles and finishing last.

1)Last place shouldn't be worth so much compared to not racing at all though - too much punishment on missing a single race.

2)Not enough gap between 1st and 2nd.

Lower every position except #1 by 15 points (or maybe even 20) would fix both.

[$noopy]

Originally posted by Doctorindy
That's OK, but the one thing I don't like is when you have, say, "THE BIG ONE" and 10 cars get eliminiated about halfway through. I say, that's it. If they're out, they're out. I don't like seeing 'the big one,' the about an hour later, one car with duct tape on the side for the number, going out just to complete ONE LAP just so they can move ahead in the standings...

Doc, I understand your viewpoint. I think this opens a can of worms. Some official has to determine what car has been torn up too bad to be repaired and allowed to continue. This is a total judgement call that can affect championships. At least, if they go by ontrack speed, they have the stopwatch to back their decisions. Again, just my opinion and that don't mean it's correct. Of course, my wife thinks all my opinions are correct.

[$noopy]

While we are on the subject of point system, how about we do away with the provisionals. If you don't earn your way into a race, stay in the garage.
I know that may be too rough because it might cause some to lose their sponsers. O.K., in that case, I'd settle for this. If a car doesn't qualify fast enough, let them start at the back for sponsor exposure, purse money, and experience, but earn no points.
Let the slings and arrows fly.

[DonnieB]

Brain teaser time.

It is mathematically possible for a driver to win every race in a season except one, and still lose the championship to a driver who doesn't win any races.

Any takers?

[Lucky161]

When it's all said and done and they are through studying it, I think they will leave it like it is. That's because I don't think they can come up with a better one. Different, but not better. This system is designed to have every team show up for every race. For all that's been said about their marketing expertise and how the OW bunch handed things over to them, the point system they have today may be the MOST important thing they ever did to grow their series. Before this system, they had things like a race in Houston that had either 11 or 15 cars. Now every fan, rabid or not, knows that ALL the stars will be at the race they go to, with only the rarest of exceptions. And they also know that in nearly every case, the race will have ramifications to the championship.

[Lucky161]

DonnieB, you made a statement, but I think you meant that as a question. The statement you made is the correct answer to the question you mean to ask. Yes. Winner of 35 races, leads at least the last lap but doesn't lead the most laps or get the pole. He gets 180 X 35. The winner of the championship finishes second in every race, leads the most laps in every race and wins the pole for every race. He gets 185 X 35.

After thinking about this, I forget if they get 5 for the pole. Even if they don't get any points for qualifying, they would still tie, but if like you said the winner of all but one, didn't win that one and instead finished behind the second place finisher in all the other races by a couple of places, the big winner would still wind up second.