Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weighted point system

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Weighted point system

    Does a weighted system for awarding points have any merit? For example:

    Indy - most heavily weighted
    Fontana/Michigan - second most
    All of the 300 mile/1.5 mile tracks - third
    Homestead, Phoenix, Nazareth, Nashville, PPIR (short ovals 200-267 miles)- least weighted.

    Somehow, I see an inequity in gaining 50 points for placing first at Homestead, and 50 for placing first at Indy. The longer races, factoring for endurance, more pit stops, etc. should carry a greater reward from a championship points perspective.

  • #2
    I've mentioned my system for quite a while as a way to temper the weight of any future-added road courses.

    Simply -

    Indianapolis = Double current points
    Other ovals = standard points
    Road/Street = 1/2 or 1/4 standard points

    In this way, you can have road/street exhibitions in the series, without completely eliminating the chances of the oval trained, American short tracker. If the 4 RC's COMBINED account for the same points as (let's say) Nazareth, team owners will not be FORCED to hire a F-oneabee to compete for the championship.
    "Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and your going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down." -- Edward Blume

    Comment


    • #3
      The OLD USAC system paid 2 points per mile, making the 500 worth 1000 points to the 2md place's 800. During those days, the Indy 500 winner was almost always the champion. They were running lots of dirt races then, and at 100 miles or so (200 points), you had to win them all to equal the 500.

      So, I personally would like to see the 500 pay real mega points. There is something so right about the number 1 on the 500 winner's car.
      "Is that my *** that I smell burning?" ... Helmet Stogie from "Death spasms of the Mabuchi"

      Comment


      • #4
        The problem is that Indy is the race that gets the most interest. If the IRL is going to grow, it has to make the non-Indy races "feel more important."

        The IRL already has the problem of teams saying, "Peak in May," "Its all about Indy," and "All of them other races are just filler." That kind of talk doesn't make me want to travel to St. Louis. Further diluting the event accomplishes exactly nothing.

        Comment


        • #5
          I read somewhere that NASCAR fans say that in there league "every race is important. In the IRL, its only Indy."

          Plus, if Indy was weigthed double, by now Helio could have a much bigger, if not insurmountable lead, over the rest of the field. Ends the championship season sooner. Imageine if Michael Shumacher got double points at one of the early races.

          Besides, INDY pays like 10X the other races. That's just as good as points. You could win the 500 and finish in the middle of the pack the rest of the year, and maybe win more than the IRL points champ. Plus, doubling up on Indy would increase the likelihood same guy wins the points as the 500. Makes for fewer "stars" over the long run.

          Comment


          • #6
            Indy should not be weighted. A driver who has trouble in Indy alone would be penalized more than a driver with trouble in 2 races.

            However, I think the points system needs looking at. I don't get this thing of giving everyone points - it only encourages people driving clunkers to try to amass more laps than those others off the track (driving, not racing). It should be kept for the top third alone. It would also make the maths easier during a race.
            "An emphasis was placed on drivers with road racing backgrounds which meant drivers from open wheel, oval track racing were at a disadvantage. That led Tony George to create the IRL." -Indy Review 1996

            Comment


            • #7
              Lets not dumb down the system more than it is. This is the worst suggestion I have ever heard.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ramdacf:
                <STRONG>I read somewhere that NASCAR fans say that in there league "every race is important. In the IRL, its only Indy."

                </STRONG>
                I know many people that feel that way. And its not just NASCAR fans. A weighted points system would just make this perception even worse.
                Preserving America's oval track tradition:
                1.New Hampshire, 2.Charlotte, 3.Dover, 4.Disney World, 5.Las Vegas, 6.Atlanta, 7.Gateway, 8.Nazereth, 9.Phoenix, 10.Fontana, 11.Pikes Peak, 12.Michigan.

                Comment


                • #9
                  But you have to spend an entire month at Indy. Two days at Gateway can get you just as much as a whole month of effort at Indy? It doesn't seem fair to me. Maybe a compromise would be to award points for qualifications at indy. 33 points for pole on down to 1 point for 33rd position.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm also against a weighted points system. All races should be equally important if you're running for the championship. I think it's great that the Indy 500 is the premier event of the series, even with the same amount of points.

                    Originally posted by ensign14:
                    <STRONG>However, I think the points system needs looking at. I don't get this thing of giving everyone points - it only encourages people driving clunkers to try to amass more laps than those others off the track (driving, not racing).</STRONG>
                    My thoughts are exactly the other way. I don't get why the driver in 7th gets only half the points of the winner (if he leads the most laps).

                    Also, reminded by the ROTY points thread, isn't it somewhat weird that somebody who wrecked often and even missed a race is still ahead of a driver that finished most races between 10th and 15th? I definitely think so.

                    And, last but not least, of course every driver should get points. It doesn't sound good to me that a driver that has competed in the race is not rewarded for his performance at all in the points standings.

                    Having said this, I have always defended NASCAR's point system, although more and more fans seem to want more points for winning.

                    [ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: GermanIRLFan ]
                    Hendrik Gerhardt

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GermanIRLFan:
                      [QB]
                      Having said this, I have always defended NASCAR's point system, although more and more fans seem to want more points for winning.

                      QB]
                      I too think NASCAR has the best system, but I wouldn't mind seeing an extra 5 points for a win.
                      Preserving America's oval track tradition:
                      1.New Hampshire, 2.Charlotte, 3.Dover, 4.Disney World, 5.Las Vegas, 6.Atlanta, 7.Gateway, 8.Nazereth, 9.Phoenix, 10.Fontana, 11.Pikes Peak, 12.Michigan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ensign14:
                        <STRONG> I don't get this thing of giving everyone points - it only encourages people driving clunkers to try to amass more laps than those others off the track (driving, not racing).</STRONG>
                        There just needs to be stricter rules on qualifying. Its time to end the practice of making the race 10mph+ off the pole speed.
                        Preserving America's oval track tradition:
                        1.New Hampshire, 2.Charlotte, 3.Dover, 4.Disney World, 5.Las Vegas, 6.Atlanta, 7.Gateway, 8.Nazereth, 9.Phoenix, 10.Fontana, 11.Pikes Peak, 12.Michigan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No weighted points. The purse of the "big" events makes them more valuable. Keeping all races with the same points system rewards the teams that show up to every event.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GermanIRLFan:
                            <STRONG>My thoughts are exactly the other way. I don't get why the driver in 7th gets only half the points of the winner (if he leads the most laps).

                            And, last but not least, of course every driver should get points. It doesn't sound good to me that a driver that has competed in the race is not rewarded for his performance at all in the points standings.
                            </STRONG>
                            My thought is that you get rewarded by winning the race, if you lead 499 miles but drop to 7th on the last lap tough titty, the race is 500 miles exactly. I don't like all this awarding points for qualifying either - it is its own reward.

                            I don't see that a starting money special should be rewarded for taking a few laps. I think points should be an achievement not a right. It's the 3 ages of racing; qualify, points, win.

                            However, I do see the reasoning behind NASCAR; at times it is almost random if you win a race or not, given the drafting opportunities and the fact that 10-15 cars can be within a second of each other. To finish consistently in the top 5 shows talent and so that should be rewarded. I don't think it right that the IRL, with many fewer rounds, ought to follow a similar system - it works for a 30 round championship where the races are close, but it gets a little silly if someone who can't ever finish on the lead lap is in championship contention because of attrition elsewhere and where there is little chance to make up for 1 retirement.
                            "An emphasis was placed on drivers with road racing backgrounds which meant drivers from open wheel, oval track racing were at a disadvantage. That led Tony George to create the IRL." -Indy Review 1996

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If you weight the points for Indy more heavily than the other races you are essentially admitting that the rest of the series doesn't really matter.
                              I personally like the CART/F1 style points structure which rewards running well rather than just running. It's silly to award points to the backmarkers for just driving around.
                              If you were hiring a CEO for IMS in 1990 would you have hired Tony George?

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X