Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chase take 6
15 views
Skip to first unread message
John McCoy
Oct 26, 2014, 9:40:02 PM10/26/14
to
In the third stage, up to 3 race winners advance, and at
least one driver advances on points.
In for sure:
no-one.
In good shape:
Gordon, Newman, Logano, Kenseth, Hamlin
In danger:
Edwards (16 points out of fourth)
Need a win:
Harvick, Keselowski
Judging by the first two rounds, making up 20+ points isn't
going to happen. So Harvick and Keselowski have to be
hoping they can split Texas and Phoenix between them.
Martinsville was the first Chase race won by a non-Chase
driver. It would be funny if the remaining three races
are also won by non-Chasers.
John
least one driver advances on points.
In for sure:
no-one.
In good shape:
Gordon, Newman, Logano, Kenseth, Hamlin
In danger:
Edwards (16 points out of fourth)
Need a win:
Harvick, Keselowski
Judging by the first two rounds, making up 20+ points isn't
going to happen. So Harvick and Keselowski have to be
hoping they can split Texas and Phoenix between them.
Martinsville was the first Chase race won by a non-Chase
driver. It would be funny if the remaining three races
are also won by non-Chasers.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
Oct 27, 2014, 9:20:03 AM10/27/14
to
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:40:02 PM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
> Martinsville was the first Chase race won by a non-Chase
> driver. It would be funny if the remaining three races
> are also won by non-Chasers.
Love it or hate it, you've got to give this new Chase format one thing--it's
> Martinsville was the first Chase race won by a non-Chase
> driver. It would be funny if the remaining three races
> are also won by non-Chasers.
been most unpredictable. Who would have thought that Johnson would be gone
at this point with Newman and Edwards still in?
There weren't too many brackets that didn't have Harvick, Keselowski or both in
the final four, and it looks pretty likely that at least one if not both won't
make it.
No disrespect to Newman and Edwards, but those guys haven't exactly set the
circuit on fire this year and I'd say that a championship for either of them
would show this new system needs a serious re-think.
John McCoy
Oct 27, 2014, 12:20:02 PM10/27/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:61f3aece-3e03-4d0c...@googlegroups.com:
> Love it or hate it, you've got to give this new Chase format one
> thing--it's been most unpredictable. Who would have thought that
> Johnson would be gone at this point with Newman and Edwards still in?
Yes, it's been entertaining. Not sure that's that's necessarily
a good thing for a "championship", but it is entertaining.
> No disrespect to Newman and Edwards, but those guys haven't exactly
> set the circuit on fire this year and I'd say that a championship for
> either of them would show this new system needs a serious re-think.
Yeah, it would kind of contradict the ostensible purpose for
the change (to wit, rewarding wins - going by wins, Keselowski,
Logano, Gordon, and Earnhardt should be the final four).
I note that, using a straight points system (courtesy of
Jayski) those four drivers are the top four, with Gordon
holding a one-race lead in points (42 ahead of Logano), which
is pretty much a lock.
John
news:61f3aece-3e03-4d0c...@googlegroups.com:
> Love it or hate it, you've got to give this new Chase format one
> thing--it's been most unpredictable. Who would have thought that
> Johnson would be gone at this point with Newman and Edwards still in?
a good thing for a "championship", but it is entertaining.
> No disrespect to Newman and Edwards, but those guys haven't exactly
> set the circuit on fire this year and I'd say that a championship for
> either of them would show this new system needs a serious re-think.
the change (to wit, rewarding wins - going by wins, Keselowski,
Logano, Gordon, and Earnhardt should be the final four).
I note that, using a straight points system (courtesy of
Jayski) those four drivers are the top four, with Gordon
holding a one-race lead in points (42 ahead of Logano), which
is pretty much a lock.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
Oct 28, 2014, 12:30:02 AM10/28/14
to
On Monday, October 27, 2014 12:20:02 PM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
> Yes, it's been entertaining. Not sure that's that's necessarily
> a good thing for a "championship", but it is entertaining.
>
And my money says that's all NASCAR really cares about. It sure has all the TV
>
> Yes, it's been entertaining. Not sure that's that's necessarily
> a good thing for a "championship", but it is entertaining.
>
people crowing about what a great thing it is.
If Newman wins the title without winning a race, you'll hear all the standard
excuses about how he played by the same rules everyone else did, but we the
fans would know that the system produced a fluke champion. Nothing against
Newman, but I hope that doesn't happen. That would be kinda like a 9-7 wild
card winning the Super Bowl.
My guess is that NASCAR expected the final four to come from among Harvick,
Keselowski, Logano, Earnhardt, Gordon and Johnson. Among that group, two are
already eliminated and two more are in serious jeopardy of not making the final
four. I guess even the best intentions sometimes produce unintended
consequences...
Pete Zahria
Oct 29, 2014, 12:40:02 PM10/29/14
to
In article bob.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>No disrespect to Newman and Edwards, but those guys haven't exactly set the
>circuit on fire this year and I'd say that a championship for either of them
>would show this new system needs a serious re-think.
Who would have thought that the Royals
>No disrespect to Newman and Edwards, but those guys haven't exactly set the
>circuit on fire this year and I'd say that a championship for either of them
>would show this new system needs a serious re-think.
would be on the verge of winning the world series?
Would that be "bad"?
Not to me.
Would seeing an upset driver be champion be "bad"?
Not to me.
--
Dan
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak out and remove all doubt."
bob.p...@gmail.com
Oct 29, 2014, 11:30:04 PM10/29/14
to
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:40:02 PM UTC-4, Pete Zahria wrote:
> Who would have thought that the Royals
> would be on the verge of winning the world series?
>
> Would that be "bad"?
> Not to me.
>
> Would seeing an upset driver be champion be "bad"?
> Not to me.
>
But you can't win the World Series without winning any games. You shouldn't
> Who would have thought that the Royals
> would be on the verge of winning the world series?
>
> Would that be "bad"?
> Not to me.
>
> Would seeing an upset driver be champion be "bad"?
> Not to me.
>
be able to win the Cup championship without winning any races.
John McCoy
Oct 30, 2014, 9:00:02 AM10/30/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:ead67741-43eb-451d...@googlegroups.com:
Well, I'd be happy with an upset driver. I always root for
the underdog (or underbird - I was a big fan of Alan Kulwicki
during his time).
But I see Bob's point, especially with regard to Newman. To
be an underdog, someone has to at least be competitive, able
to challenge the "usual" winners.
Edwards has two wins, and a handful of top fives. He's run
rather poorly in the last few races, but on a season perspective
he's been competitive.
Kenseth has no wins, but 12 top 5s, and several of those have
been 2nd and 3rd places, showing he was contending for the win
at those races.
Newman has but 4 top 5s, and the best of those was a pair of
3rds. He really hasn't been a threat to win a race all season,
he's not one of those "always just missed" sort of guys.
I'd be OK with Kenseth or Edwards as champion. I think if
Newman wins it you'd have to say the system failed, that it
produced a fluke result that a well designed system shouldn't.
John
news:ead67741-43eb-451d...@googlegroups.com:
the underdog (or underbird - I was a big fan of Alan Kulwicki
during his time).
But I see Bob's point, especially with regard to Newman. To
be an underdog, someone has to at least be competitive, able
to challenge the "usual" winners.
Edwards has two wins, and a handful of top fives. He's run
rather poorly in the last few races, but on a season perspective
he's been competitive.
Kenseth has no wins, but 12 top 5s, and several of those have
been 2nd and 3rd places, showing he was contending for the win
at those races.
Newman has but 4 top 5s, and the best of those was a pair of
3rds. He really hasn't been a threat to win a race all season,
he's not one of those "always just missed" sort of guys.
I'd be OK with Kenseth or Edwards as champion. I think if
Newman wins it you'd have to say the system failed, that it
produced a fluke result that a well designed system shouldn't.
John
Pete Zahria
Oct 30, 2014, 1:50:02 PM10/30/14
to
But you "can" win the world series, even if you did not win your division.
You "can" win the super bowl with a less than stellar season record.
The "wildcards" just threw a different dynamic into the mix, that's all..
At the end of the first 26 races, from that point on, you had to race your
way to advance.
Some did, and some didn't. So that is a victory of sorts.
If there are fewer races in a segment, than racers that advance,
then there are going to be non winners advancing.
In fact, there could be only one winner..
I know some people hate trying to compare racing with ball stuff,
but it "is" a sport.. and I don't compare it to ballsports completely,
but I do not mind the playoff type of format at all.
I'm not that old school in that regard.
That and championships aren't that big a deal to me any way.
At the end of the season, I always have, in my mind, the guy that
was most impressive. That may or may not be the champion.
At this point there are two guys that have impressed me, beyond expectations..
Neither may win... But that will not change my mind for my "Top Dog"..
bob.p...@gmail.com
Oct 31, 2014, 9:40:02 PM10/31/14
to
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:00:02 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
> I'd be OK with Kenseth or Edwards as champion. I think if
> Newman wins it you'd have to say the system failed, that it
> produced a fluke result that a well designed system shouldn't.
>
I know Edwards has a couple wins, but in the grand scheme of things, he has not
>
> I'd be OK with Kenseth or Edwards as champion. I think if
> Newman wins it you'd have to say the system failed, that it
> produced a fluke result that a well designed system shouldn't.
>
run like a champion over the whole season. I'd consider either a Kenseth or
Edwards championship as a fluke result.
I guess it's just a characteristic of any playoff system that a team that
underperforms in the "regular season" but still makes the playoffs has a
chance to get hot when it counts and take the title.
Still, I think it should be impossible to win the championship with a big
zero in the win column. So, if it were up to me, the Chase field would be
comprised of the race winners from the first 26 races, period. No getting in
on points. You don't win, you don't run for the title.
I know that could lead to a relatively small field if one guy wins a ton of
races in the regular season, but it would prevent what I think is the ultimate
fluke--a championship with no wins.
John McCoy
Nov 1, 2014, 9:10:03 AM11/1/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:803509d5-32ea-4640...@googlegroups.com:
> Still, I think it should be impossible to win the championship with a
> big zero in the win column. So, if it were up to me, the Chase field
> would be comprised of the race winners from the first 26 races,
> period. No getting in on points. You don't win, you don't run for
> the title.
Another way of doing it would simply be to scrap the Chase
entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
most races during the season.
John
news:803509d5-32ea-4640...@googlegroups.com:
> Still, I think it should be impossible to win the championship with a
> big zero in the win column. So, if it were up to me, the Chase field
> would be comprised of the race winners from the first 26 races,
> period. No getting in on points. You don't win, you don't run for
> the title.
entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
most races during the season.
John
John McCoy
Nov 2, 2014, 9:00:02 PM11/2/14
to
John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:XnsA3D2DBFA74C...@213.239.209.88:
It's susposed to be "up to 3 race winners advance, and at
least one driver advances on points", but it's coming out
the other way around - at least 3 will advance on points.
In for sure:
no-one.
In good shape:
Logano, Hamlin, Newman
Need a win:
Gordon, Kenseth, Edwards, Harvick, Keselowski
Only 6 points seperate the last 5, so to be certain of
moving on, they each have to shoot for a win at Phoenix.
Two in a row won by non-chase drivers.
John
news:XnsA3D2DBFA74C...@213.239.209.88:
It's susposed to be "up to 3 race winners advance, and at
least one driver advances on points", but it's coming out
the other way around - at least 3 will advance on points.
In for sure:
no-one.
In good shape:
Need a win:
Gordon, Kenseth, Edwards, Harvick, Keselowski
Only 6 points seperate the last 5, so to be certain of
moving on, they each have to shoot for a win at Phoenix.
Two in a row won by non-chase drivers.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2014, 6:50:02 PM11/8/14
to
On Saturday, November 1, 2014 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
> Another way of doing it would simply be to scrap the Chase
> entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
> most races during the season.
>
I'd favor that, with tiebreakers on the number of second place finishes (or
>
> Another way of doing it would simply be to scrap the Chase
> entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
> most races during the season.
>
thirds or fourths if needed). I remember a couple cases where a driver
absolutely dominated the win column but didn't win the championship. Bill
Elliott and Jeff Gordon come to mind.
Of course NASCAR would never go for something that simple. They want to gin
up as much excitement as possible and would never go for a system where the
title could be clinched before the final race of the season.
John McCoy
Nov 8, 2014, 7:10:03 PM11/8/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:2bf8d6db-1b60-42d3...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, November 1, 2014 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>
>> Another way of doing it would simply be to scrap the Chase
>> entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
>> most races during the season.
>>
>
> I'd favor that, with tiebreakers on the number of second place
> finishes (or thirds or fourths if needed). I remember a couple cases
> where a driver absolutely dominated the win column but didn't win the
> championship. Bill Elliott and Jeff Gordon come to mind.
I owe you an apology Bob, this went for moderation for some
reason and I didn't see it while I was out-of-town on
business.
I agree with you on the drivers dominating the win column -
especially back in the old days, when guys like Pearson
didn't run the whole season, the guy with the most wins
was rarely the champion.
John
news:2bf8d6db-1b60-42d3...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, November 1, 2014 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>
>> Another way of doing it would simply be to scrap the Chase
>> entirely, and give the championship to the guy who wins the
>> most races during the season.
>>
>
> I'd favor that, with tiebreakers on the number of second place
> finishes (or thirds or fourths if needed). I remember a couple cases
> where a driver absolutely dominated the win column but didn't win the
> championship. Bill Elliott and Jeff Gordon come to mind.
reason and I didn't see it while I was out-of-town on
business.
I agree with you on the drivers dominating the win column -
especially back in the old days, when guys like Pearson
didn't run the whole season, the guy with the most wins
was rarely the champion.
John
0 new messages