Why Does NASCAR's Chase Give So Much Credit to "Losers"?

Question

I'm not a NASCAR fanatic but have some interest in it.

But, the way that the Chase is set up keeps me unimpressed.

I think that the top 5 spots in a race should get points. No one else gets any points.

I don't understand the concept of giving points for leading laps and not winning. I could care less if my favorite driver didn't lead any laps until the end of the race.

I don't understand why someone who has won a handful of races should "fall behind" because he gets in a wreck early in the next race and, thus, can't earn any points.

What counts should be winning or being in the top 5. Nothing else should carry any weight.

I also don't believe that a guy who comes in 5th several times is worth as much as a guy who wins 1 or 2 times.

Any fans of NASCAR want to "enlighten" me?

The setup for handing out points seems to be oriented towards keeping sponsors names on TV. I guess Tide is happy if the Tide car leads a lot of laps.

But, I bet kids would design scoring to give points to whoever wins ... not to whoever leads.

Answer 1

There are many different levels of drivers in NASCAR's highest series. The elite teams contend for the championship. The middle of the pack teams hope to make the chase. The next tier struggle to stay in the top 35 and the lesser teams are happy just to qualify for a few races. Even the teams that don't make the race get points depending on how they qualified. Points being issued to all the drivers and teams is necessary because it is such a long season and there is so much at stake. There are many battles being played out on every lap of every race and there is much more to those than the drivers trying to win a championship. I don't agree with locking the top 35 drivers in but that is another big reason for how and why points get awarded the way they do.

Answer 2

You seem to contradict yourself. You state that only the top five should get any points. Twice. You also state a guy who places 5th in a series of races is not worth as much as a driver who places 1st in one or two races.
You also say you don't understand why a driver who has won a handful of races should "fall behind" because of an early wreck, when your points system would do just that!

A driver who places 5th several times is showing consistency, just as much as the driver who wins a handful of races is showing consistency.

Your system of only awarding the top 5 is going to hurt the driver who wrecked a lot more than the driver who could only accomplish a bunch of fifth place finishes, because for every race he wrecks, he gets no points. I would think this type of points system would promote mediocrity, rather than good racing.

I know I would get a lot more work done around the house on Sunday, because I wouldn't even turn on the TV until the last few laps when the "real racing" would start, because every driver with some sense would be holding back knowing if they wreck early they get NOTHING.

I would rather the drivers be competing from the very beginning, jockeying for position, trying different tactics to see if they can improve their ride.

If there were one thing I could change about the points system, it would be to give more credit to laps led. A guy could lead the first 50 laps and only get 5 points, the same amount of points a guy would get if he led only one lap. I think there should be points for EACH lap led, then you wouldn't have drivers waiting until the last 50 laps to show what they've got.

Answer 3

One of the big reasons they do the point system the way they do is that there are a ton of things outside of the driver/team's control during an individual race. They do grade down the points the farther back that a team finishes. NASCAR also gives bonus points for winning the race to try to get teams to compete for the win & not just "points race". Awarding points for leading laps, on the surface, may not make sense but it is a way to reward drivers/teams that try to run up front. Points all the way thru need to be awarded because if a car is running 2nd on the last lap & the lead car wipes them out resulting in their dropping to 20th due to no fault of their own doesn't make any sense. Finally, the season is 36 races long. If a team finishes in the top 5 every race (very hypothetical, I know) vs. a team that wins 3 races & doesn't finish in the top 20 the other 33 races, who's the better team? The system ain't perfect, but it does reward consistency & it encourages teams to go for the win.

Answer 4

It is not based on 1 race, it is based on 36 races, and every race a driver gets points for leading a lap, most laps lead, and winning the race. Just because you win a race 1 or 2 in 36 races but another driver consistently finishes in the Top 5 every week is obviously a better driver than the 1 who only won 1 race and finished at the back of the pack everyweek.

Answer 5

nascar operates on the "if you build it they will come" philosophy, and you build it by bringing in the sponsors and making sure they are happy, but almost all American motor sports have points for nearly all finishing positions,

and yes consistency if more important that 1 race win
if you have a driver that wins 3 races and has 30 finishes in the 20s, he has been consistently beaten by the guy that finished top 10 every race,

but i agree there should be a larger gap for winning a race

Answer 6

there is no tide car in nascar since 2003. and if you think the chase format sux, the one that gave robot matt kenseth the last winston cup championship in '03 was giving the big prize to a guy who won one(!!!) race and finished about 8th in every other race of the season.

Answer 7

NASCAR is a different series than Formula One. Therefore, their points system is different.

Answer 8

The points system has many flaws but it is what it is. You have to have some method of keeping standings!!!!!