Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tweaking the Chase rules
23 views
Skip to first unread message
bob.p...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2014, 4:20:02 PM11/17/14
to
If Ryan Newman had won the Cup, we'd be hearing all over the place today about
how he did indeed deserve the championship because he played by the same rules
as everyone else and came out on top.
OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not address the
real question--did the system get it right? I don't think fair minded fans can
quibble with Harvick as champ. You may have been pulling for someone else,
(I was), but that 4 car led a bunch of laps, won a good number of races and was
one of the cars to beat week in and week out.
But in my opinion, the system got lucky. It definitely failed to pick the four
most deserving drivers to duke it out at Homestead. Both Brad Keselowski and
Jeff Gordon deserved to be there and were not.
Brian France has been quoted as saying he's thrilled with this elimination
style format and that there will be very little if any changes to it for next
season.
He has ruled out limiting the Chase field to just race winners from the first 26
races. If there are fewer than 16 winners, some drivers will get in on points
again. Fair enough. I can live with that.
However, I'd like to suggest the following tweak. Apply the bonus points for
winning in the first 26 races to all three knockout rounds, not just the first
one.
NASCAR has said several times it wants to be more like the NFL. OK, the NFL
playoffs give an edge to the teams with the best regular season records
throughout the entire playoffs, not just the first round. It's still possible
for a 9-7 six seed to run the table and win the Super Bowl, but such a team
would and should have a tougher road to the title than a 14-2 top seed.
Let the race winners from the first 26 races retain a "higher seeding"
throughout the entire Chase, not just the first round. That's not a huge
tweak, but it's one that should help the system get it right.
how he did indeed deserve the championship because he played by the same rules
as everyone else and came out on top.
OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not address the
real question--did the system get it right? I don't think fair minded fans can
quibble with Harvick as champ. You may have been pulling for someone else,
(I was), but that 4 car led a bunch of laps, won a good number of races and was
one of the cars to beat week in and week out.
But in my opinion, the system got lucky. It definitely failed to pick the four
most deserving drivers to duke it out at Homestead. Both Brad Keselowski and
Jeff Gordon deserved to be there and were not.
Brian France has been quoted as saying he's thrilled with this elimination
style format and that there will be very little if any changes to it for next
season.
He has ruled out limiting the Chase field to just race winners from the first 26
races. If there are fewer than 16 winners, some drivers will get in on points
again. Fair enough. I can live with that.
However, I'd like to suggest the following tweak. Apply the bonus points for
winning in the first 26 races to all three knockout rounds, not just the first
one.
NASCAR has said several times it wants to be more like the NFL. OK, the NFL
playoffs give an edge to the teams with the best regular season records
throughout the entire playoffs, not just the first round. It's still possible
for a 9-7 six seed to run the table and win the Super Bowl, but such a team
would and should have a tougher road to the title than a 14-2 top seed.
Let the race winners from the first 26 races retain a "higher seeding"
throughout the entire Chase, not just the first round. That's not a huge
tweak, but it's one that should help the system get it right.
John McCoy
Nov 17, 2014, 6:40:02 PM11/17/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:01d9c52b-3c93-4a44...@googlegroups.com:
> If Ryan Newman had won the Cup, we'd be hearing all over the place
> today about how he did indeed deserve the championship because he
> played by the same rules as everyone else and came out on top.
Well, if he had did, he've have done it by winning the race.
That's the only way he'd have been ahead of Harvick, and if
he'd won the race, I'd say he deserved it.
> OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not
> address the real question--did the system get it right?
No. As I said on the other group, the Homestead race reminded
me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
a championship at all.
John
news:01d9c52b-3c93-4a44...@googlegroups.com:
> If Ryan Newman had won the Cup, we'd be hearing all over the place
> today about how he did indeed deserve the championship because he
> played by the same rules as everyone else and came out on top.
That's the only way he'd have been ahead of Harvick, and if
he'd won the race, I'd say he deserved it.
> OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not
> address the real question--did the system get it right?
me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
a championship at all.
John
Pete Zahria
Nov 17, 2014, 8:30:03 PM11/17/14
to
In article John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>No. As I said on the other group, the Homestead race reminded
>me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
>win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
>a championship at all.
>
>John
But it isn't billed as a championship either...
>No. As I said on the other group, the Homestead race reminded
>me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
>win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
>a championship at all.
>
>John
>From last February, the format was set for NASCAR.
That was it.
bob.p...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2014, 9:30:04 PM11/17/14
to
On Monday, November 17, 2014 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, John McCoy wrote:
> > OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not
> > address the real question--did the system get it right?
>
> No. As I said on the other group, the Homestead race reminded
> me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
> win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
> a championship at all.
Well, it seems like crowning a champion in any sport is becoming less and less
> > OK, that answers the "did he deserve it" question, but it does not
> > address the real question--did the system get it right?
>
> No. As I said on the other group, the Homestead race reminded
> me of when dirt late models have a special "million dollars to
> win" race. It's just one race for a huge prize. Not really
> a championship at all.
about recognizing the best performance and more and more about marketing,
promotion and fattening the bottom line.
Used to be that the team with the best record in the American League squared
off against the team with the best record in the National League for the World
Series title. Now they play wild card games, divisional playoffs, league
championship playoffs--all of which generate hype, buzz and revenue--then they
play the World Series.
Same in the NFL, NHL and NBA.
So, in light of the fact that the rest of the sports world is putting hype
and buzz ahead of finding the best overall performance, I have to grudgingly
accept the simple "most points over the course of the season is the champ" is
an outdated philosophy that doesn't work in today's sports world.
Still, all the other major sports seed their playoffs to favor the teams that
performed best in the regular season. NASCAR should do the same. Apply the
bonus points for winning to all three knockout rounds.
John McCoy
Nov 18, 2014, 2:30:03 PM11/18/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:90ec7a45-1520-42b7...@googlegroups.com:
> Well, it seems like crowning a champion in any sport is becoming less
> and less about recognizing the best performance and more and more
> about marketing, promotion and fattening the bottom line.
>
> Used to be that the team with the best record in the American League
> squared off against the team with the best record in the National
> League for the World Series title. Now they play wild card games,
> divisional playoffs, league championship playoffs--all of which
> generate hype, buzz and revenue--then they play the World Series.
In the US, at least, that's so. Everything is based around
finding a way to have more playoff games, because they're
big moneymakers and don't cost any more to run than a regular
game.
I contrast that with the English soccer leagues. There are
actually several championships there, but the one I'm thinking
of is the FA Cup. It's a single elimination tournament for
all the clubs in England - all 736 professional, semi-pro,
and minor league teams. No divisions or wildcards or any of
that stuff, just win every game to be champion.
John
news:90ec7a45-1520-42b7...@googlegroups.com:
> Well, it seems like crowning a champion in any sport is becoming less
> and less about recognizing the best performance and more and more
> about marketing, promotion and fattening the bottom line.
>
> Used to be that the team with the best record in the American League
> squared off against the team with the best record in the National
> League for the World Series title. Now they play wild card games,
> divisional playoffs, league championship playoffs--all of which
> generate hype, buzz and revenue--then they play the World Series.
finding a way to have more playoff games, because they're
big moneymakers and don't cost any more to run than a regular
game.
I contrast that with the English soccer leagues. There are
actually several championships there, but the one I'm thinking
of is the FA Cup. It's a single elimination tournament for
all the clubs in England - all 736 professional, semi-pro,
and minor league teams. No divisions or wildcards or any of
that stuff, just win every game to be champion.
John
Mr T
Nov 21, 2014, 11:10:02 AM11/21/14
to
> So, in light of the fact that the rest of the sports world is putting hype
> and buzz ahead of finding the best overall performance, I have to grudgingly
> accept the simple "most points over the course of the season is the champ" is
> an outdated philosophy that doesn't work in today's sports world.
Even if this is the case with Buzz and Marketing being king, I can't work out in my head how this new format encapsulates that. Just having 4 drivers in the running on the last race means you're only going to have 4 sets of fans who are really interested in the outcome of the last race. I was under the impression "the chase" was originally set up so 12 drivers would have that chance. Personally, I don't like either formats but then I haven't grown up with it.
> and buzz ahead of finding the best overall performance, I have to grudgingly
> accept the simple "most points over the course of the season is the champ" is
> an outdated philosophy that doesn't work in today's sports world.
Also, as an outsider looking in (from Australia) I don't understand all the hype and emphasis that is placed on winning in NASCAR. If you look at any other race car championship other than NASCAR, you will usually have a podium where the first, second, and third placed drivers get a trophy. Anyone in the placings on that podium is usually happy to be in that position at the end. In NASCAR even if you get second, the driver will moan and complain on the TV because he couldn't win. I think it's this win or lose mindset that has helped NASCAR to go down this elimination route.
bob.p...@gmail.com
Nov 21, 2014, 2:10:03 PM11/21/14
to
On Friday, November 21, 2014 11:10:02 AM UTC-5, Mr T wrote:
> Even if this is the case with Buzz and Marketing being king, I can't work out in my head how this new format encapsulates that. Just having 4 drivers in the running on the last race means you're only going to have 4 sets of fans who are really interested in the outcome of the last race. I was under the impression "the chase" was originally set up so 12 drivers would have that chance. Personally, I don't like either formats but then I haven't grown up with it.
Without doing the research to back it up, I'd say off the top of my head that
> Even if this is the case with Buzz and Marketing being king, I can't work out in my head how this new format encapsulates that. Just having 4 drivers in the running on the last race means you're only going to have 4 sets of fans who are really interested in the outcome of the last race. I was under the impression "the chase" was originally set up so 12 drivers would have that chance. Personally, I don't like either formats but then I haven't grown up with it.
under the old Chase format, there were often fewer than four drivers still
mathematically alive for the championship by the time we got to the last race.
That was certainly the case for the old pre-Chase format where in some years
the title was clinched before the last race, and several other times, all a
driver had to do was start the last race to win the title.
So, a system guaranteeing that four guys will enter the last race with a shot
at the championship--and will have to run hard to get it--will indeed generate
more interest in the last race than in previous years. No doubt that was one
of NASCAR's primary design considerations.
> Also, as an outsider looking in (from Australia) I don't understand all the hype and emphasis that is placed on winning in NASCAR. If you look at any other race car championship other than NASCAR, you will usually have a podium where the first, second, and third placed drivers get a trophy. Anyone in the placings on that podium is usually happy to be in that position at the end. In NASCAR even if you get second, the driver will moan and complain on the TV because he couldn't win. I think it's this win or lose mindset that has helped NASCAR to go down this elimination route.
second and third may be putting on a happy face, but are still disappointed
that they didn't win.
I like the emphasis on winning. After all, that's what you race for. I'd like
to see NASCAR tweak the system to apply the bonus points for winning to all
three knockout rounds of the Chase. No disrespect to Hamiln and Newman, but
I would much rather have seen Jeff Gordon and Brad Keselowski in the final four.
John McCoy
Nov 21, 2014, 4:50:02 PM11/21/14
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:51e8b9a8-5128-4572...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 11:10:02 AM UTC-5, Mr T wrote:
>> Also, as an outsider looking in (from Australia) I don't understand
>> all the hype and emphasis that is placed on winning in NASCAR. If you
>> look at any other race car championship other than NASCAR, you will
>> usually have a podium where the first, second, and third placed
>> drivers get a trophy. Anyone in the placings on that podium is
>> usually happy to be in that position at the end.
are many more teams with a shot to win. In F1, only Mercedes,
Red Bull, or Ferrari are going to win - in LMP, only Audi,
Toyota, or Porsche. If you're Sauber or Lotus or Courage or
Oreca you're just running to be near the front, that's success
for those teams. By the same token, tho, you can bet that
if Hamilton's on second step and Rosberg's on top, Hamilton
is not at all happy (nor Rosberg, if it's the reverse order)
In NASCAR, you generally only hear about the teams with a
shot to win. All the Hendrick, Stewart-Haas, Childress,
Gibbs, MWR, Penske, Roush, Ganassi, even Petty cars think
they can win and are unhappy if they don't. You never hear
of Phil Parsons Racing (Wow! Such car!), but you'd better
beleive they'd be tickled to death with a 10th place finish.
(something I just noticed - PPR used Fords at the plate
tracks and Chevies elsewhere. I don't recall seeing a team
use different brands like that for many years now.)
John
news:51e8b9a8-5128-4572...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 11:10:02 AM UTC-5, Mr T wrote:
>> Also, as an outsider looking in (from Australia) I don't understand
>> all the hype and emphasis that is placed on winning in NASCAR. If you
>> look at any other race car championship other than NASCAR, you will
>> usually have a podium where the first, second, and third placed
>> drivers get a trophy. Anyone in the placings on that podium is
>> usually happy to be in that position at the end.
> I don't watch any other type of racing, but I'd bet that the guys
> finishing second and third may be putting on a happy face, but are
> still disappointed that they didn't win.
I think a big part of the difference is that in NASCAR there
> finishing second and third may be putting on a happy face, but are
> still disappointed that they didn't win.
are many more teams with a shot to win. In F1, only Mercedes,
Red Bull, or Ferrari are going to win - in LMP, only Audi,
Toyota, or Porsche. If you're Sauber or Lotus or Courage or
Oreca you're just running to be near the front, that's success
for those teams. By the same token, tho, you can bet that
if Hamilton's on second step and Rosberg's on top, Hamilton
is not at all happy (nor Rosberg, if it's the reverse order)
In NASCAR, you generally only hear about the teams with a
shot to win. All the Hendrick, Stewart-Haas, Childress,
Gibbs, MWR, Penske, Roush, Ganassi, even Petty cars think
they can win and are unhappy if they don't. You never hear
of Phil Parsons Racing (Wow! Such car!), but you'd better
beleive they'd be tickled to death with a 10th place finish.
(something I just noticed - PPR used Fords at the plate
tracks and Chevies elsewhere. I don't recall seeing a team
use different brands like that for many years now.)
John
Pete Zahria
Nov 23, 2014, 5:00:02 PM11/23/14
to
>You never hear
>of Phil Parsons Racing (Wow! Such car!), but you'd better
>beleive they'd be tickled to death with a 10th place finish.
>John
>of Phil Parsons Racing (Wow! Such car!), but you'd better
>beleive they'd be tickled to death with a 10th place finish.
Or qualifying for the Daytona 500...
~300 grand to start.
Mr T
Nov 23, 2014, 5:50:03 PM11/23/14
to
> Without doing the research to back it up, I'd say off the top of my head that under the old Chase format, there were often fewer than four drivers still mathematically alive for the championship by the time we got to the last race.
> That was certainly the case for the old pre-Chase format where in some years the title was clinched before the last race, and several other times, all a driver had to do was start the last race to win the title.
> So, a system guaranteeing that four guys will enter the last race with a shot at the championship--and will have to run hard to get it--will indeed generate more interest in the last race than in previous years. No doubt that was one of NASCAR's primary design considerations.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I seem to recall in the last couple of years 2 or 3 drivers (less than 4) being capable of winning the championship in the last race some of it depending on the outcome of their competition (ie. only if one of the contenders did badly or crashed). The new format certainly puts the pressure on those 4 drivers in the last race.
> That was certainly the case for the old pre-Chase format where in some years the title was clinched before the last race, and several other times, all a driver had to do was start the last race to win the title.
> So, a system guaranteeing that four guys will enter the last race with a shot at the championship--and will have to run hard to get it--will indeed generate more interest in the last race than in previous years. No doubt that was one of NASCAR's primary design considerations.
0 new messages