0 wins

Beautiful! We have a Nationwide NASCAR champion with zero f--king wins. Isn't this why they changed the Sprint Cup points system...some guy won a championship with only one win in 2003???

Hmmm...no red flag??? Doesn't disprove my NASCAR good 'ol boy theory if your owner happens to be Hendrick or Childress.

Yeah, there really should have been a red flag. I think the 0 wins says more about a point system based on average finish.

What's worse, Penske (as well as any other Sprint Cup driver that drove in and won a Nationwide Series race this year) screwed his own driver, Sam Hornish Jr., out of the championship, by entering so many regular Sprint Cup drivers in the Nationwide races! Hornish Jr. finish 2nd, several times, to Sprint Cup regulars, in the Nationwide races. Had they not been competing, Hornish would have had wins, i.e., the necessary points, that would have given him the title! The REAL culprit here is Sprint Cup drivers running the Nationwide races, more so than any other factor!

Nascar series are the only ones in world motorsport, that I think should award the series to the driver with the most wins. There's sufficient amount of races and competitors that it doesn't look as stupid to do so than in other competitions.

It depends if you want to reward consistency or outright wins.

But it's certainly true that since NASCAR has more races than pretty much any other motorsport series it would be ideally suited to a 'medals' system, where quite simply the driver with the most wins comes away as champion.

This would be the same as the Olympic ranking system, drivers are ranked in order of how many wins they have. If wins are the same they rank in terms of second places etc. This of course would mean that the driver with one win and 20 DNFs would beat the driver with 21 second place finishes and no wins.

Nascar has always been about consistency, so it was bound to happen, sooner or later.

Watch, people are going to be hammering for a Chase format in the lower series now, too (puke)

If Nascar was all about consistency, then so be it. As an outsider, from Australia, I often thought the points allocation, even before The Chase, was bogus. I doesn't even really reward consistency I don't think, consistently getting top 5s. Just being thereabouts. Does The Chase even make a serious difference? I think Jeff Gordon has been denied a couple of titles since.

The "gold medal" system I think would change the nature of the racing. Certainly with 6 wins to Kenseth's 7, Johnson might not have been so comfortable in 9th. When I can be bothered, I might even make an effort to compare, in recent years, the series standings and most wins.

The object of racing, whether NASCAR, the Olympics, or a primary school egg-and-spoon race is to win notwithstanding Olympic ideals about "taking part". A champion in any sport should be the best at achieving the objectives of the sport, whether it is: beating your opponent senseless in boxing, hitting a little ball the fewest times in golf, etc.

A racing champion without a win is a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, it would be far better to declare the driver with the most wins to be champion, with second places determining ties, then third places etc.

Or is NASCAR racing really a circus where the spectacle not the result is what matters?