Nascar considering points system changes?

[Alexamateo]

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=6031384


The person spoke to The AP on condition of anonymity because NASCAR has not finalized its upcoming changes.

The sanctioning body wants to go to a scoring system that would award 43 points to the race winner, and one point less for each ensuing position down to one point for the 43rd-place finisher.

The article says its just under consideration. I'm not sure it solves the main problem (IMO) of the old system, which was punishing a low finish more than it rewarded a top finish.

My test is how would it affect the 1996 season championship. To refresh memories:


Terry Labonte had 21 top 5 and 24 top 10's in 31 races.
Jeff Gordon had 21 top 5's and 24 top 10's in 31 races.

The difference: Jeff Gordon had 17 top 3's (10 wins, 3 seconds, 4 thirds), Terry Labonte had 14 top 3's (2 wins, 7 seconds, 5 thirds).

Jeff's 7 non-Top 10 finishes: 42,40,37,34,33,31,12
Terry's 7 non Top 10 finishes: 34,26,24,24,24,21,16

Terry won the championship because when he had bad luck and finished out of the top 10 it was later in the race and he finished in the 20's, when Jeff had bad luck and finished out of the top 10 it was early in the race and he finished in the 30's and even had a couple of 40's. When push came to shove, Jeff won the race or finished in the top 3, while Terry settled for a top 5. The bad finishes were punished more than the good finishes rewarded.

When I run points under this possible system, Terry Labonte wins the points 1109 to 1070, so in my mind this would not be a good points system.

[slorydn1]

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=6031384



The article says its just under consideration. I'm not sure it solves the main problem (IMO) of the old system, which was punishing a low finish more than it rewarded a top finish.

My test is how would it affect the 1996 season championship. To refresh memories:



When I run points under this possible system, Terry Labonte wins the points 1109 to 1070, so in my mind this would not be a good points system.

It's funny you mentioned 1996, because when my brother mentioned it to me just a few minutes ago, THAT was the season I was thinking of.

I was going to post all the seasons from my study from 1975-2010....but work keeps getting in the way. But I have all the results in and I can tell you that using the current 25pt win FIA system that Jeff Gordon would have beaten Terry Labonte 430-344, or by 86 points (OVER a 3 race margin) in 1996. Why? Because the FIA only awards points down to p10, so both drivers bad days came out the same-a big fat zero. The rest of the time Jeffroleum out performed TLAB.

Good catch, Alex.

I am not diametricly opposed to doing away with the Latford system. I just dont want there to be a change just for changes sake. If the change isnt going to fix the problem,
or make it worse, then don't mess with it.

I love the FIA system- but another idea I saw last year, and toyed with myself, was the 200 point win system (+bonuses) so that if you win the race and lead the most laps you get 210, and p2 would get the same 170 it gets now (provided he doesn't lead)...a nice little 40 pt swing, and even if p2 leads the most laps then it would be 205-180, which would be good for a 25 point difference, so winning the races would be somewhat more important, while still givng the consistent guys a chance at doing well.

[damg75]

IMO this is even WORSE than the Latford system...now it's COMPLETELY all about avg finish, while the Latford was MOSTLY about avg finish, but you did get some bonuses for wins and laps led. These so called "bonuses" for wins and lap leaders they're discussing right now need to be plentiful to make up for the sheer avg finish style of a 43-1 points structure...NASCAR will never get it, it seems. Wish they'd get rid of the Chase as well, but at least what they're talking about is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than the completely contrived "elimination format."

[Alexamateo]

I've posted it here before, but my points system proposal would be this:



I would propose a points floor at 30th and pay everyone the same points from there on back. Face it, if the guys going for a championship finish lower than 30th, it's bad luck. The rest of the points would stay the same, but I would pay 4th 165, 3rd 175, 2nd 190, and 1st 215. Bonus points remain the same.

An alternative solution would be to do like early Formula 1 and only count the best "X" finishes, enabling a driver to throw out his worst 3 or 4 finishes


So just to be clear, the Latford system would remain exactly the same except for 30th and below receiving the exact same # of points. 4th would receive 5 more points than they now do, 3rd 10 more, 2nd 20 more, and 1st 30 more points. Of course a win would pay 220 with the lap leader bonus, and 225 with the most laps led.

[damg75]

I've posted it here before, but my points system proposal would be this:




So just to be clear, the Latford system would remain exactly the same except for 30th and below receiving the exact same # of points. 4th would receive 5 more points than they now do, 3rd 10 more, 2nd 20 more, and 1st 30 more points. Of course a win would pay 220 with the lap leader bonus, and 225 with the most laps led.

This is something I could go for.

[slorydn1]

I've posted it here before, but my points system proposal would be this:




So just to be clear, the Latford system would remain exactly the same except for 30th and below receiving the exact same # of points. 4th would receive 5 more points than they now do, 3rd 10 more, 2nd 20 more, and 1st 30 more points. Of course a win would pay 220 with the lap leader bonus, and 225 with the most laps led.

This would be the thread where we have had this discussion before:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?139136-Poll-Chase-No-Chase

[harvick#1]

Nascar lost all creditability when Brian France took over.

hes turned the sport I used to like into a who gives a crap anymore, I used to be one of the fans that couldnt miss one race and always wanted to attend one live, but not I really can care less when its on and watch something more interesting. when does the ALMS season start :p :

[slorydn1]

I did a little number crunching today, and I was able to generate the points standings through Richmond using the new Bri-Bri points system. I Stopped there because I am still clueless as to:



a) What the reset number will be for the chasers

b) How the seedings would work (and as you will see, that will become VERY important)



So, here is the TOP 20 through Richmond:




001 K Harvick.........890
002 C Edwards.........834
003 J Gordon..........829
004 Ky Busch..........819
005 M Kenseth.........817
006 J Burton..........814
007 T Stewart.........807
008 Ku Busch..........790
009 J Johnson.........768
010 C Bowyer..........763
-----------------------------
011 D Hamlin..........750
012 G Biffle..........745
013 R Newman..........728
014 M Martin..........708
015 D Reutimann.......697
016 J McMurray........693
017 J Montoya.........682
018 K Kahne...........672
019 A Allmendinger....660
020 J Logano..........659

NOW....Keep in mind in the new BRI BRI system, there will still be 12 drivers in the Chase, RIGHT? BUT- only the top 10 make it on POINTS with the last two being "Wild Cards" based on wins-call it the Jamie McMurray rule. What that means is, Denny Hamlin in p11 with his 6 wins still makes it on wins, as does Jamie McMurray with his two wins from way back in p16. That leaves Greg Biffle assed out of the chase.

Now, that makes statement B above even more important. How do you seed the drivers who get in? Are they REALLY going to seed a driver who didn't make it in on points, but by the hand out of a Wild Card because of race wins AHEAD of the season long points leader? And by how MUCH?????? I'm guessing since 10 points of the 185 (excluding bonuses) is a roughly 5.4% bonus for winning a race, I'm going to assume that they'll gift the race winners an extra 2 points per race win (thats 2.3 points rounded down).

I'm hoping if we really are going to be stuck with this system and a Chase they'll seed based on points instead of wins-or if they do seed on wins, that they don't seed a Wild Card ahead of a driver that earned it all year. My guess is that they will probably seed the top 10 based on their race wins, then add the 2 wild cards P11 and P12 which would be the fairest way to seed if they are gonna do it by race wins. That would put JJ as the points leader coming out of Richmond instead of Hamlin (which still sucks, but at least I could live with that even though he would have been p9 in the points after the race at least he would have earned his berth on points). Still I think Harvick should have been seeded first because of the tail whippin he put on the rest of the field the whole year up to that point...


Thoughts?

:beer:

[Alexamateo]

Good work slo, and it shows that this system is even worse at rewarding wins and top finishes as Denny Hamlin drops from 9th to 11th. JJ drops to 9th from 6th. Kenseth goes to 5th from 8th.

Consistency is important, but I don't think the championship should be decided because one guy's off day ends in 22nd, while anothers was 32nd. Neither one was really racing for it on those days. I'm more interested in the guy who races up to third while the other guy settles for sixth. For me the tragedy is 6th and 22nd beat 3rd and 32nd in the points.

[NaBUru38]

To me, the second-placed driver should get around 70% of the winner's points, and the third placed 55-60%. The points scale shouldn't be flat from that point on (though flatter than now), so fighting for advancing from 31st to 30th is worth the effort.

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...

[Mark]

Personally I don't particularly like points systems which reward low finishes, you want more points, then finish higher up! After all NASCAR has a lot of races, so there's plenty of opportunity to get into the top 10 next weekend if you didn't the previous weekend. So why don't NASCAR go some something radical like 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1

[Lee Roy]

So why don't NASCAR go some something radical like 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1

With 43 starters in each race, there are some teams that never get a sniff of a top 10 finish. In the past, many of these teams used to rely on the points money at the end of the year. (Something I heard Richard Childress mention from his days when driving his own car.)

Maybe a system that awarded points down through the top 20 or 25 might be more applicable to NASCAR.

[Mark]

That's fair enough, but there's no reason that your money allocation has to be tied to the points you score for the championship race.

[Lee Roy]

That's fair enough, but there's no reason that your money allocation has to be tied to the points you score for the championship race.

What other criteria would you use to pay out the championship fund other that the championship points scored?

[Mark]

What other criteria would you use to pay out the championship fund other that the championship points scored?

Whatever you like! Finishing position in each race pays a certain amount of money, completely disconnected from the points.

I realise it'll never happen of course, but it's just a point worth discussing :)

[slorydn1]

001 K Harvick.........1272
002 C Edwards.........1160
003 J Johnson.........1146
004 M Kenseth.........1124
005 D Hamlin..........1118
006 J Gordon..........1102
007 T Stewart.........1085
008 Ky Busch..........1080
009 Ku Busch..........1052
010 J Burton..........1040



This list is as the title suggests, the top 10 after Homestead, without any bonuses since we don't know exactly what they are yet. If and when they do, I will add those in and reset the last 10 and do the Chase....

[slorydn1]

001 K Harvick.........382
002 J Johnson.........378
003 D Hamlin..........368
004 C Edwards.........326
005 M Martin..........325
006 J Logano..........310
007 M Kenseth.........307
008 J McMurray........301
009 R Newman..........292
010 G Biffle..........286


This was the top 10 in points scored just over the last 10 races. Would be really interesting what NASCAR ends up using for the chase seedings...

For full disclosure-even though he is not in this list or the season top 10 list above, I docked Clint Bowyer 33 points which in this system is equivalent to the 150 points he lost after winning Loudon. Adding those back in would have given him 301 over the last 10, tying him with McMurray for P8 over the last 10, and 1064 over the full season which would have made him p9, dropping Burton out of the top 10....

[Alexamateo]

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/columns/story?columnist=blount_terry&id=6048006

Terry Blount's idea for points works IMO. I might reward 2nd and 3rd with more points myself, but this works for me and a driver could still recover from getting knocked out and finishing 37th.

[Lee Roy]

I like what Dale Jarrett has to say:


Former Sprint Cup champion and current ESPN analyst Dale Jarrett is not a big fan of NASCAR’s plan for changing the points system.

Instead, he says NASCAR needs to put more emphasis on winning by creating a much greater bonus for the winner and by increasing the purse money paid to the winning team.

NASCAR is expected to overhaul its 35-year-old points structure, and is considering awarding points each week on a 43-to-1 system with the winner getting 43 points and last place only 1.

“I’m not opposed to what they are looking at changing, but to think that our points system being too complicated has any bearing on people watching our sport or keeping up with it is a total misconception,” Jarrett said Saturday night before being inducted into the National Motorsports Press Association Hall of Fame.


Jarrett also says that winning a race should pay more money. He says each NASCAR race should be as much as $1 million to the winner like most PGA golf tournaments.

“The PGA pays almost a million dollars almost every singe weekend to the winner of a PGA event and I don’t see why we can’t come somewhere close to that,” he says. “You want to see these guys to race – and I’m not saying that they are not racing hard now – you add some bonus points for first and I think a lot of people would get a lot more excited if they knew there was a bigger premium on first, so let’s pay $750,000 to a million a weekend and you are going to get people doing that.”

Jarrett says a bigger purse, particularly to the winner, also would help owners cut back on the guaranteed money they have to pay drivers, allowing them to put more back into their teams.

“I don’t have any problem with somebody getting paid a lot of money, but there are people out there who really haven’t done a whole lot in this sport making a lot of money,” he said.

“If the owners could cut back on what they have to guarantee them instead of what they have to race for and what they can make there, and there’s a bigger carrot out there at the front end, I think we should do that.”



http://nascar.speedtv.com/article/cup-dale-jarret-weighs-in-on-changes/

[Osella]

Hi Guys - it's been a while!

Just a few thoughts. .
Mark, amongst others, mentioned that the points should only be applicable to the top 10/20, etc. . The problem is then, how do you pay out the money that, let's face it, NASCAR teams rely on?
Basically, no teams = no NASCAR = nothing to watch. You would end up in the usual Motorsport situation of pricing people out, and then you'll only end up with 20 cars in a field, because you give the others zero reward! You would have to ASK Roush to run 6 cars to fill out the field, because nobody else can get sponsorship to run. .

Imagine if you just spent your time (For example Furniture Row Racing) working up from finishing in the 30's, to the 20's, and perhaps the odd top-10 here and there, when the 'big teams' retire with failures, wrecks etc.
Suddenly, instead of getting a fair few points (yes, through consistency) you end up with none, becaue your average finishing position is 22nd, and no top-10's.

Now fair enough, you get your money maybe at the end of the year based on finishing positions, for those teams not scoring points (As in Formula 1), but where can you show your sponsors the return? Why should sponsors pick you over just any other non-scoring team? How can you show merit, and progress?
The same is true for drivers looking to move up, and also for new teams coming in. . If you're a new team, (and NOT a start-and-park operation), you can actually gain a fair few points through consistently finishing, say 29th - but can show you DID something, rather than being one of 28 teams all tied for 21st place with zero points. . ?

I grew up watching F1 in the early 90's, and always thought it was disappointing that guys who started 30th for small teams, and finished 7th scored the same as guys who crashed at the first corner!
NASCAR has always been a source of admiration for the way that points are awarded to everybody, allowing a real look at the end of the season at exactly how good a team/driver REALLY is.
To me, anything less is just not NASCAR, and only rewards the 'usual' big teams and their drivers, and ostracizes the small teams from even trying. . I mean, you're 8 laps down, with damage. You're running 28th. Wouldn't you park it, and save the car?
I think this would lead to a LOT of people parking, not just the relative few we have now. Under those points, why not?

I'm also worried about the 'McMurray rule'. . I can easily (sadly) see a day where they host a fan vote at Richmond to decide the 12th Chase driver on popularity alone. . *shudder*

Final point; Can't disagree with Dale Jarrett on his comments! Points all the way, bigger split in the money, less to the drivers - unless they go out & RACE for it!
Personally I say, take Jarrett's suggestions, and leave the damn points system alone!

[DanicaFan]

They need to change the points systems. Not have such a big difference in the points for starters, lower the number a driver can get. Plus drastically modify the chase and make it like a playoff system.

Here is how I would do the chase..

The top 10 in points make it to the chase and the chase starts with 10 races left. Of the 10 drivers in it, the lowest place finisher is eliminated and the other 9 move on to the remainder of the races. After the next race, the lowest place finisher is eliminated, leaving 8 drivers left for the remaining 8 races. This repeats itself over and over until the last race where the winner is determined by who finishes the highest.

[Osella]

So Harvick (for example) leads the points all season long, wins all 26 races (unfeasible I agree, but just for sake of argument!).. His engine fails in Chase race 1, he's out.. I know, as Tony Stewart says, whichever points system you use, just let everybody know which one it is, but really..? Is that at all reasonable and fair, to eliminate someone off the back of one bad result..? Wouldn't you rather see how many drivers are in with a chance at the finale, or IF a driver can pull themselves out of a hole. .

Even worse, the driver that is eliminated, is eliminated because a tyre (tire) rolls loose during a stop, traps that driver a lap down, bang - he's eliminated..? I know in stick & ball sports in playoffs, or cup competitions that's just 'tough', but realistically, this is motorsport. All I can imagine from that scenario is one where the fans turn away in their droves because the best guy never wins, and the winner is pretty much arbitrarily decided..
What's to stop an eliminated driver holding up, or even wrecking another guy for personal satisfaction, vengeance, or to help out a teammate?

Also, the racing will suffer, because one risky pass could wreck you out of something you have worked all your life towards. . It for sure will lead to some good/hard racing - just as we see every week from the last cars on the lead lap as the leader approaches, but really, desperation being the root cause of drivers to race one another? Bad idea. .

This is racing, and arbitrary winners isn't really something that fans want in my experience. This is why we are racing fans above all other sports, no matter how much Football, Soccer, Ice Hockey, Tennis or anything else we watch.
I want to see the best we can, NOT simply the most entertaining - they are not the same thing.

[slorydn1]

So Harvick (for example) leads the points all season long, wins all 26 races (unfeasible I agree, but just for sake of argument!).. His engine fails in Chase race 1, he's out.. I know, as Tony Stewart says, whichever points system you use, just let everybody know which one it is, but really..? Is that at all reasonable and fair, to eliminate someone off the back of one bad result..? Wouldn't you rather see how many drivers are in with a chance at the finale, or IF a driver can pull themselves out of a hole. .

Even worse, the driver that is eliminated, is eliminated because a tyre (tire) rolls loose during a stop, traps that driver a lap down, bang - he's eliminated..? I know in stick & ball sports in playoffs, or cup competitions that's just 'tough', but realistically, this is motorsport. All I can imagine from that scenario is one where the fans turn away in their droves because the best guy never wins, and the winner is pretty much arbitrarily decided..
What's to stop an eliminated driver holding up, or even wrecking another guy for personal satisfaction, vengeance, or to help out a teammate?

Also, the racing will suffer, because one risky pass could wreck you out of something you have worked all your life towards. . It for sure will lead to some good/hard racing - just as we see every week from the last cars on the lead lap as the leader approaches, but really, desperation being the root cause of drivers to race one another? Bad idea. .

This is racing, and arbitrary winners isn't really something that fans want in my experience. This is why we are racing fans above all other sports, no matter how much Football, Soccer, Ice Hockey, Tennis or anything else we watch.
I want to see the best we can, NOT simply the most entertaining - they are not the same thing.

Well placed, my old friend. A definite sight for sore eyes. I have been railing against the Chase since it began. Lee Roy would say it's because I just hate change. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, I don't know. I can say I do hate change just for changes stake. There was almost nothing wrong with the points system 2003 and prior. The ONLY issue I had with it was that p1 and p2 could score the same points under certain conditions. That has been rectified and the points are what they are. I wouldn't mind seeing a change to the FIA system for Drivers points, and some other deal for Owners points so that we could sort out the back markers.

Does anyone realize that this new points structure, if approved will not only exacerbate the "consistency" issue that just about everyone but me has a problem with, but that (depending on the bonus points structure) p2 could actually get MORE POINTS than p1 under certain circumstances?

I'm really going to hate it at the end of race 4 or 5 when Mike Joy goes through the points rundown and Larry Mac pipes up "Gee DW, Look how close it is from first all the way back to 20th!!!!" and its like a 50-100 point spread, more than one to almost 3 races behind.

[Mark]

Hi Guys - it's been a while!


You're not kidding!



Just a few thoughts. .
Mark, amongst others, mentioned that the points should only be applicable to the top 10/20, etc. . The problem is then, how do you pay out the money that, let's face it, NASCAR teams rely on?

As I mentioned, there is no law that money must be tied down to the points system. In fact it would serve better if it were completely seperate. Other championships seem to manage to have a mechanism for paying points which count towards the championship and a seperate mechanism for paying the teams. This could be based on the old points system or something completely different, the public don't need to know anything about it.

[Mark]

I wouldn't mind seeing a change to the FIA system for Drivers points, and some other deal for Owners points so that we could sort out the back markers.


Yep, that would make the most sense IMO. That way there's a means of giving teams the cash payouts they need to keep racing but make sure that in the race for the drivers championship then excellence and only excellence is rewarded. Then you'd have a situation like F1 was back when they only scored the top-6 where when a mid-pack team scores a single point, it's like a win!

[Lee Roy]

The top 10 in points make it to the chase and the chase starts with 10 races left. Of the 10 drivers in it, the lowest place finisher is eliminated and the other 9 move on to the remainder of the races. After the next race, the lowest place finisher is eliminated, leaving 8 drivers left for the remaining 8 races. This repeats itself over and over until the last race where the winner is determined by who finishes the highest.

If the first driver of the 10 is eliminated due to a poor finish, then goes on over the rest of the chase to score more points than the other 9, it kinda makes a joke of this system.

[Mark]

That would only work if the drivers knocked out didn't compete in the remaining races. Just scrap the chase and problem solved :s

[Mark]

What about Bernies 'medals' system. Where the driver who is champion is simply the one with the most wins!

[Lee Roy]

Just scrap the chase and problem solved :s

Wouldn't hurt my feelings. Bruton Smith thinks it'll end eventually anyway.

http://nascar.speedtv.com/article/cup-bruton-smith-nascar-may-have-to-ultimately-scrap-chase/

[slorydn1]

I'm sure most of you are aware by now that the Latford points system is now officialy dead. It has been replaced by the Bri-Bri System.

The 43 down to 1 ratio has been implemented, which we all knew was coming, anyway.

We now know that there will be 1 bonus point for leading a lap, and 1 bonus point for leading the most laps, and 3 bonus points for winning the a race.

The 3 points for winning the race will be used for both seeding, and as another change from last year, will be included in your points haul as you go along, which means you will still earn the win bonuses during the chase, which they werent getting before.

As discussed, Top 10 drivers after the conclusion of race 26 will be locked into the chase, as well as 2 drivers with the most wins not already locked in regardless of points position.

My fear has been alleviated, that the "Wild Card" drivers can be seeded no higher than p11 or p12 regardless of the number of wins they have.

The magic chase reset number is 2000, plus the 3 bonus points for wins.

The Bri-Bri system is in effect in ALL 3 National Series, but season long in Natwide and Trucks.

So, to recap, if you win the race, and lead the most laps, and p2 doesn't lead at all, the spread would be 48-42. If p2 leads a lap, 48-43. If p2 leads the most laps, its 47-44.

The "podium", if p1 leads most laps and neither p2 or p3 leads, is 48-42-41. If p3 leads a lap and p2 doesnt, its 48-42-42. If p3 leads the most laps and p2 doesn't lead, its 47-42-43 (ruh-roh). So much for the incentive to move up, huh?

I now need to go re-run my simulation with the lap leader and race win bonuses to see how last year actually shook out.


I can tell you with out redoing it, just using some quick math in my head, that JJ would have won anyway, and probably by a similar margin that he did in real life, anyway, but we'll see here in a little bit.

[slorydn1]

Its getting late so I don't have time to post the whole deal right now, but the sim is complete and JJ had 2403, Hamlin 2398, and Harvick 2396 using the Bri Bri system..... In other words Harvick was never able to overcome the seeding penalty that Nascar still has yet to address.... He started the Chase 8 points behind Hamlin, and finished it 7 points behind JJ.....

[Mark]

Great, it's so easy to follow now :crazy:

[ShiftingGears]

Just scrap the chase and problem solved :s

:up:

[Alexamateo]

They really haven't changed anything except to reward running up front even less.

Here's the math:



pos. old -31 old/3 new
1 185 154 51.33 46
2 170 139 46.33 42
3 165 134 44.67 41
4 160 129 43 40
5 155 124 41.33 39
6 150 119 39.67 38
7 146 115 38.33 37
8 142 111 37 36
9 138 107 35.67 35
10 134 103 34.33 34
11 130 99 33 33
12 127 96 32 32
13 124 93 31 31
14 121 90 30 30
15 118 87 29 29
16 115 84 28 28
17 112 81 27 27
18 109 78 26 26
19 106 75 25 25
20 103 72 24 24
21 100 69 23 23
22 97 66 22 22
23 94 63 21 21
24 91 60 20 20
25 88 57 19 19
26 85 54 18 18
27 82 51 17 17
28 79 48 16 16
29 76 45 15 15
30 73 42 14 14
31 70 39 13 13
32 67 36 12 12
33 64 33 11 11
34 61 30 10 10
35 58 27 9 9
36 55 24 8 8
37 52 21 7 7
38 49 18 6 6
39 46 15 5 5
40 43 12 4 4
41 40 9 3 3
42 37 6 2 2
43 34 3 1 1


Columns are as follows: positions 1-43, old points system, less 31 points for all to bring 43rd to 3 points, divided all by 3 to bring 43rd to 1 point, and the new points system. The only thing they did was make it simpler to understand. If their goal was to reward winning more, they failed, if they wanted to discourage "points racing" and have more people go for it, they failed. What they did was bring a driver stroking along in 11th to 20th closer to the top. It doesn't reward him for trying to break into the top 10 and risk more at the end of a race. It even rewards winning less than before. Can anyone do math I wonder?

[harvick#1]

as long as the Chase is still there, these point systems are useless.

a point system like this and the last one is too determine a champion after a season with no playoff, the Chase sucks and Brian will never listen to whoever his remaining fans are .

[Mark in Oshawa]

I read Dale Jarrett's thoughts and I thought, My god, I am not the only one who figured this was the LAST thing they needed to do to fix NASCAR.

I don't like this points system now, I think it actually cheapens the value of a win. Maybe the numbers will prove me wrong, but on this one, after a good run down to the last race with 3 possible winners, leaving the points alone makes more sense than this half assed attempt to make the math easier for people too dumb to understand the old system.

[NaBUru38]

Here's the math:


pos. old -31 /3 new
1 185 154 51.3 46
2 170 139 46.3 42
3 165 134 44.7 41
4 160 129 43 40
5 155 124 41.3 39
10 134 103 34.3 34
15 118 87 29 29
20 103 72 24 24
30 73 42 14 14
43 34 3 1 1
DNS 0 -31 -10.3 0

The only thing they did was make it simpler to understand. If their goal was to reward winning more, they failed, if they wanted to discourage "points racing" and have more people go for it, they failed. What they did was bring a driver stroking along in 11th to 20th closer to the top. It doesn't reward him for trying to break into the top 10 and risk more at the end of a race. It even rewards winning less than before. Can anyone do math I wonder?
That's a brilliant analysis, Alexamateo! :)

The "-31" means that starts and parks are less rewarded. A win equalled 5.4 starts and parks finishes, now equal 46. A 5th finished equalled 4.6 starts and parks, now it's 39. That's good.

But the scale among the top 10 is even flatter than before. It's a joke.

[slorydn1]

I read Dale Jarrett's thoughts and I thought, My god, I am not the only one who figured this was the LAST thing they needed to do to fix NASCAR.

I don't like this points system now, I think it actually cheapens the value of a win. Maybe the numbers will prove me wrong, but on this one, after a good run down to the last race with 3 possible winners, leaving the points alone makes more sense than this half assed attempt to make the math easier for people too dumb to understand the old system.

Agreed. Talking with my brother about this the other day, and we both agreed that we feel like Bri-Bri just got super tired of people like me trying to compare the chase era stuff to the pre chase erea stuff and wanted to make it more difficult. Well, he accomplished his mission all right.

The only fix that was needed was dumping the chase entirely.

But since that wasnt an option, then leaving the system alone would have sufficed.

I still would have liked the latford system, even with the gimmicky chase, with a the base line for a win bumped up to 200 points from 185, then the lap bonuses added in on top of that.

I just hate the fact that, as usual, they lied to us. They did this to make it "more simple, easier for the fans to understand".

Rigght, more simple, sure, I get it. You want simple? Make the finishing position EQUAL to the number of points earned, and the LOWEST score wins. P1=1, P43=43. If you fail to qualify, you get 44 or more points based on what your Q position was. THATS simple (and no I'm not advocating that, as that would make it STRICTLY avg finish-but that would have made it as simple as can be).

[e2mtt]

The only thing that was "complicated" about the Latford points was the 31 point base, & the awarded points to owners for cars that DNQ. If you followed any back-marker teams or drivers, it was messy. Up front, quite workable - you gotta have some kind of system.

This new Bri-Bri systems is a pathetic joke. Other than the leader, all positions are equally spread. You pick up just as many extra points advancing from 40th to 30th as you do from 13th to 3rd. This is going to make it MORE important to fix busted cars & run for points than ever. At the same time they just devalued top 10s & podiums, they made back-of-pack racing essential.

For a field the size of a Nascar stock car race, I think a point system that rewards the top 25 to 30 positions, & give a solid bonus to the winner & then top 5 finishers, is about right.

[Alexamateo]

The only thing that was "complicated" about the Latford points was the 31 point base, & the awarded points to owners for cars that DNQ. If you followed any back-marker teams or drivers, it was messy. Up front, quite workable - you gotta have some kind of system.

This new Bri-Bri systems is a pathetic joke. Other than the leader, all positions are equally spread. You pick up just as many extra points advancing from 40th to 30th as you do from 13th to 3rd. This is going to make it MORE important to fix busted cars & run for points than ever. At the same time they just devalued top 10s & podiums, they made back-of-pack racing essential.

For a field the size of a Nascar stock car race, I think a point system that rewards the top 25 to 30 positions, & give a solid bonus to the winner & then top 5 finishers, is about right.

Hear Hear!!!!!