A few days ago I asked an open question about how someone can be the best for 26 races and still lose to someone who gets lucky or runs the best over just 10 races , less than 1/3 of the races. Several people tried to compare NASCAR to baseball, football, basketball and so on. That is the stupidest argument in the world. None of those sports are setup anything like NASCAR. In their "playoffs" only cerntain teams are allowed in. NASCAR still lets 43 drivers compete every race. No loser team in baseball can effect the outcome of a playoff game. Secondly the team with the best records usually are rewarded with bye games or home court advantage. In NASCAR our best team was penalized by 20 points. So please stop comaring NASCAR to other sports cause it doesn't work. The only thing that comes close is Track because it's an individual sport even though you are on a team.
2007-12-04 05:44:34 · 21 answers · asked by 3x8=24 1 in Sports ➔ Auto Racing ➔ NASCAR
I agree. NASCAR trying to be more like other sports it what started all this bad racing. NASCAR be your own sport, go back to your roots.
2007-12-04 05:49:47 · answer #1 · answered by NASCAR has reached all time low 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because Jimmie was tossing Hail Mary's and connecting while Jeffie was using a 4 yards and a cloud of dust approach is no reason to dis the chase.
For 15 years under the recently deceased point system, all I heard was wins should count for something.
Beginning in 2007, wins were worth 10 points going into the Chase. Gordon was "penalized" for having fewer wins in the first 26. Jimmie just flat out beat him, where and when it mattered most, win column (overall) and the final ten races.
I don't see how you can't compare by saying a loser team can have no impact in a playoff.
Look at the 1985 Villanova basketball team. The first year of the 64 team format. They had a lot of losses, yet they completed one of the most surprising runs in NCAA tournament history by winning the national championship. The eighth-seeded Wildcats beat Dayton, then upset top-seeded Michigan, Maryland and second-seeded North Carolina to win the Southeast Regional en route to the Final Four in Lexington, Kentucky. After defeating 2-seed Memphis State in the national semifinals, Villanova met defending champion and ten-point-favorite Georgetown, led by Patrick Ewing, in the title game.
To this day they remain the lowest seed with the worst regular season record (19-11) to win it all, when it mattered, finishing 25-11.
Jimmie's regular season wasn't that bad and if not for the 4 DNF's he may have been leading Gordon after the first 26.
There were a lot of top notch college teams in 1985 that wished the rules hadn't changed. The combined record of three of the teams Nova beat was 92-11. They beat the defending Champ and just a year earlier wouldn't have gotten the chance, being just another loser.
In 1983, NC State had the kind of year Jimmie had. Started well, went through a tough streak when Whittenburg went down with an injury. Went into the ACC tourney at 17-10, but won 9 straight finishing with a defeat of Houston in the Championship game. They probably wouldn't have gotten the invitation but got the automatic bid by winning the ACC Tourney. If 21-9 Geogia hadn't beaten 27-4 St John's, State probably wouldn't have made it to the Title game.
By the way, State played 4 games against #1 ranked teams that year and won 3. The game they lost---Virginia---a game they were leading when Whittenburg got hurt. If the 3-point shot was in effect and Whittenburg hadn't got hurt, they may have gone undefeated.
In NCAA basketball "loser" teams can have a big impact.
I've never once heard anybody say that the survivor of the NCAA tournament didn't deserve to be called "Champ".
Why? Because they won when it mattered most.
Gordon had his chance, knew what would be necessary and blew it, yet again.
And Ed, Petty didn't win all his Championships under the same point system as Earnhardt. Under the point system that Earnhardt was under for his 7, Petty only won 5.
I would have liked to have seen Earnhardt race under the Chase format, even if he had never won a championship.
2007-12-04 15:51:33 · answer #2 · answered by crunch 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off, I'm not sure what the question is here, but I do agree with you on what you are saying that NASCAR is completely different from other sports in the world. It is in its own league and has to be treated that way. So in that case, it has to have unique rules adjusted to that sport. When you think about it, you never have all thirty some odd NFL teams playing each other on one field at the same time, it would just be impossible.
Overall, there is nothing that I can really think of that I can compare NASCAR to.
2007-12-04 09:20:50 · answer #3 · answered by littledjr815 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question since the NASCAR officials and CEO are constantly comparing it to the stick and ball sports. I don't watch those sports and couldn't care less about them. That's why NASCAR is so screwed up now, because dumb and dumber (France and Melton) apparently want it more like other sports! I hope somebody wises up soon before they run it totally into the ground!
2016-05-28 04:00:43 · answer #4 · answered by margurite 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
L-IT-DON'T !! Ga. Bulldog's were the hottest team in the last part of the season!! look what happened to them.
And as far as letting 43 drivers compete in all 36 races ??
That's the object of the game / sport ! Mastering your car,with 42 other cars around you. Yankee's were a winning team,had a losing ''part'' of a team.. and that part was the BULL PEN.
You can compare them to a pit crew. I've seen drivers with a comanding 4 / 5 sec. lead,and ''part'' of that team.. [pit crew]
blow the save !!!
2007-12-04 14:32:21 · answer #5 · answered by Bow-legged Snake 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with your opinion the Chase format is not a good thing in my opinion. If it was goo denough for Petty & Earnhardt Sr. to win 7 a piece is is good enough for todays drivers.Now it is controversy filled--If it was under the old points system so and so would have won... If so and so cant win Under the Chase format then is he comparable to past Champions in Greatnes....New Era......Modern Era.... Old era.... and on and on. They only Sport in my opinion that Nascar even comes close to being Compared To is Pro Golf--Golfer & Caddy--Driver & Crew Chief!!!!!
2007-12-04 07:03:57 · answer #6 · answered by Ed P 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
OK, we get that you don't like the chase format. However, this is Yahoo Answers, not Yahoo Rants. Is there a question somewhere in all that yammering or are you going to keep beating this horse until it's made into Alpo? If you ask a question you will most likely get some answers that don't share your point of view. If you can't handle different opinions you might consider taking a break until you're feeling like you can cope with it. Just a suggestion.
2007-12-04 06:21:16 · answer #7 · answered by Tregosteevo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Motorsports is completely different from "ball" sports. I wish people would just stop trying. This sport involves the use of a high horsepower machine cutting through the air at speeds around 200 mph. Comparisons to football, baseball, or any other sport are just plain dumb. In racing you don't get eliminated, you just get BEAT!
2007-12-04 07:49:49 · answer #8 · answered by Jay 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can compare it to Baja racing, Boat racing, Snowmobile racing, Motorcycle racing, Monster trucks etc. The people answering your question are going through life with blinders on. Compare Motorsports with Motorsports, and Ball games with Ball games. We play with balls when we grow up. As adults we have more options. When we want to go to the next level, we do Motorsports.
2007-12-04 10:33:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Gordon lost. He was the first loser. He has exactly 4 championships.
I like Jeff but you need to deal with reality and get over this.
2007-12-04 10:05:13 · answer #10 · answered by beth 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋