Should it be the person who wins the most races be crowned the champ? They do in most other sports...Look at Stewart who won by laying back in most of his races a few years back...He who has the most wins is the champ and let'em race! Let the cars be a car-not a model for all to use as one..This becomes cookie-cutter-car racing..Make it to were you can tell the difference between the makes and models...Might as well make all cars like IROC or something..Points or no points system?
2007-02-20 05:35:21 · 15 answers · asked by texas_devil_having_fun 1 in Sports ➔ Auto Racing ➔ NASCAR
The point system awards consistency. Which is much tougher than winning races. According to your system a guy could win 6 races but come in last in every other race and win it all. Stewart didn't win by just laying in the back. He's one of the more aggressive drivers in the sport, he won some key races that year. If a guy can finish consistantly in the top 5 or 10, he deserves to be the champ.
2007-02-20 05:45:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I like the points system. Think about it, it awards the drivers who have worked hard all year long and raced consistently well. The champion should be the driver and team who were finishing with mostly top 5's and top 10's. A team that is consistent each week is what it's all about, not just get a couple wins and finish 43rd in all the other races...
Also if there were no points system, by the half way point in a race the drivers and teams running outside the top 15 would just want to give up and park their car. Because what would then be the point of racing if there was nothing to gain without the chance at winning the race?
2007-02-20 14:57:02 · answer #2 · answered by Jamie McMurray Fan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Keep a points system of some kind...as it rewards consistancy. Otherwise, that guy that wins 3 or 4 races early in the season may find himself in the wall the rest of the season. And, theoretically, a driver need not even show up to the majority of the races to win the championship. Consistency is much more difficult achieve anyway. A blind squirrel find a nut every now and then.
2007-02-23 18:23:26 · answer #3 · answered by bend_over_n_say_aww 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The points system awards consistancy. The best driver is often not the one who won the most races. Look at Kasey Kahne in 2006. Deserved an easier time making the Chase? Yes. Deserved the Championship? No.
2007-02-22 16:58:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The points system before the Chase, maybe add 5 more for a win, The chase system is a joke, team works hard to get ahead and POOF all the hard work is gone.
This is suppose to be professional not little league, but the rules have turned little league over the past 5 yrs, So much for Brian Frances new NASCAR, most likely I won't be watching anymore
2007-02-20 08:12:37 · answer #5 · answered by Chris D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well according to your theory, there would be a lot of years when two or maybe three guys would be champs. I'll go one step further, J.Gordon has 75 wins, thats more than Stewart and 6 or 7 other guys put togeather, lets just keep him as the perminate champ. Gotta have some way to award points to the other guys who don't win. Thus, the points system as all motor sports do.
2007-02-20 07:06:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
truthfully variations, the two to the factors device and the chase. I observed a remark by ability of Max interior of yet another answer with reference to the chase: "i'm up for keeping apart the chaser like most of the others stated or an removing format that eliminates a chaser consistent with race." i admire the assumption, yet how approximately incredibly than one driving force being left for the final race, there are like 4. as a techniques because of the fact the factors ordinarily is going - 2 of the foremost proceedings are that wins do no longer count type as lots and that is no longer uncommon for somebody to be way forward in factors getting close to the top and no-one has of venture to seize up. So do this, do away with the three, 4, 5 element distinction between positions. 2 factors distinction, beginning at 0 for forty third, which has the added earnings of possibly conserving the early parkers from doing that, and supply sixteen greater desirable factors to the winner ( think of that comes out to a hundred for the winner, 80 two for 2d, 80 for third, and so on. till you win so lots greater races than everybody else, you are able to not be way forward. only my 2 (ok possibly 6 or 8) cents worth.
2016-11-24 20:21:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the points should stay. You need to be consistant to win the championship. Because say a guy like Boris Said comes in and races 8 races because he is good at road courses and restrictor plate tracks, he wins 5 of them. Would that be fair for someone to only race 8 times to win the season championship. No, the points should stay.
2007-02-20 05:51:58 · answer #8 · answered by edempsey18 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Winning the race is the most important thing. No one goes out there and says they want to come it 2nd or 3rd! It is all about #1. You can lead all the laps of the race if you want but it's only the last one that should count. A Champion is one who finishes first!
2007-02-20 05:50:34 · answer #9 · answered by Dan L 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't do away with it, instead, I would tweak the current one to make winning more important. All you really have to do is make points for winning a lot higher.
But whatever it should be changed to, I think it has to be something that the drivers like
2007-02-20 06:55:10 · answer #10 · answered by samwu09 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋