WC Points system flaw
Jizbo Jones
As a Rusty fan, I shouldn't be bitching, but when the second place
finisher earns the same # of points as the winner, there's something
amiss. The race winner should be awarded a significant # of points
more than the runner-up and on down from there (They should only award
the top 10 or so finishers points, but that's another points issue
I'll bitch about at another time). It's been said that second place is
only the first loser, but with this anamoly in the points system, it
just aint so. It probably won't amount to much at season's end, but
for each individual race, the winner should get the most points and by
a significant number.
"We gained a lot of points and I think we might win a championship if
we keep at it."
Brett
anything in Nascar. But, ask yourself, who should win the
championship...the fastest as a whole, all season, or the guy who won a few
more races, but finished the rest in the middle, or at the back...
--
-Brett
Goodbye Greg Moore 1975-1999
Jizbo Jones <bone...@wahoo.com> wrote in article
<398dba9f....@news.prodigy.net>...
R a p p y
"Brett" <bpatt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:01beb69e$52e3c760$069f8ad1@default...
> Actually, Rusty was bitchin' last season about how winning doesn't mean
> anything in Nascar. But, ask yourself, who should win the
> championship...the fastest as a whole, all season, or the guy who won a few
> more races, but finished the rest in the middle, or at the back...
I too think there is no way the winner should not get the most points.......
how about just 5 more points for winning.....so that no matter what you
end up with the most points that race. That would be enough for me....
Benjamin
>
>As a Rusty fan, I shouldn't be bitching, but when the second place
>finisher earns the same # of points as the winner, there's something
>amiss.
SOMETIMES I can agree with this, like if 2nd place led the most laps by just one
or two over the winner, but stop and look at the race Rusty ran.... he was the
car to beat all day long, I wouldn't go quite as far as to say he dominated, but
he was pretty much in control, so I think the points worked out pretty good in
this case, Bobby won, but it was Rusty's race - same points, no problem....
Mark Stahl
it were. the points system needs to be fixed.
"Brett" <bpatt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:01beb69e$52e3c760$069f8ad1@default...
> Actually, Rusty was bitchin' last season about how winning doesn't mean
> anything in Nascar. But, ask yourself, who should win the
> championship...the fastest as a whole, all season, or the guy who won a
few
> more races, but finished the rest in the middle, or at the back...
>
> --
> -Brett
> Goodbye Greg Moore 1975-1999
>
>
> Jizbo Jones <bone...@wahoo.com> wrote in article
> <398dba9f....@news.prodigy.net>...
> >
> > As a Rusty fan, I shouldn't be bitching, but when the second place
> > finisher earns the same # of points as the winner, there's something
Renold Jonsin
"Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:8mkk5g$rdf$1...@moonbeam.aecom.yu.edu...
> definately the guy who won more races. winning is the "name of the game",
as
> it were. the points system needs to be fixed.
>
I've plugged in a lot of different points systems into my Excel sheets and I
have yet to find one that makes a difference while awarding points to
everyone who starts. I believe that a system similar to the F1 or CART
systems would go a long way toward rewarding wins and high finishes since
they only give points to the top 6 and top 12 respectively. This would
award high finishes and quality consistency as well as clearing out the
wrecked cars driving around trying to pick up points.
Perhaps if NASCAR gave a set number of points for making the race, then
awarded even the top 20 positions points, they could reward both consistency
and high finishes, but to award everyone points based on their finishing
position down to last place is a little too much. With owner points, they
even award points for NOT making the race.
In the NASCAR points system, the driver who finishes last earns about 19% of
the points the winner does, minimum 180 vs 34. In order to get
approximately that percentage of points in F1, a driver would have to finish
5th (10 pts for the win Vs 2 points for 5th.) In CART, a driver would have
to finish 9th (20 pts for the win, 4 points for 9th.) In addition, CART
awards one point each for leading the most laps and winning the pole.
NASCAR needs to award a win enough points that second place can't score as
many points. Allow 75 to 80% of the points for 2nd that are awarded for
1st, then a narrower margin between 2nd and 3rd and so on down the line to
20th. If they want to award points for most laps or leading a lap, they
could include those two, however keep the total bonus possible substantially
less than the difference between 1st and 2nd.
NASCAR top 13 (includes all winners)
Bobby Labonte
Dale Jarrett
Dale Earnhardt
Jeff Burton
Rusty Wallace
Tony Stewart
Ward Burton
Jeff Gordon
Ricky Rudd
Mark Martin
Mike Skinner
Matt Kenseth
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
The Cup standings using F1 points has the 12 winners at the top with Ricky
Rudd in 13th. Rudd is the only driver in the top 10 without a win this
season.
Driver F1 Points Total
Bobby Labonte 58
Jeff Burton 49
Dale Jarrett 47
Tony Stewart 47
Dale Earnhardt 40
Rusty Wallace 38
Mark Martin 34
Jeff Gordon 29
Jeremy Mayfield 25
Dale Earnhardt Jr. 23
Matt Kenseth 23
Ward Burton 21
Ricky Rudd 17
In the CART Standings it's 10 winners, Rudd, then Kenseth and E Jr.
Driver CART Points Total
Bobby Labonte 184
Dale Jarrett 182
Dale Earnhardt 158
Jeff Burton 156
Tony Stewart 152
Rusty Wallace 139
Mark Martin 129
Jeff Gordon 109
Ward Burton 99
Jeremy Mayfield 92
Ricky Rudd 88
Matt Kenseth 73
Dale Earnhardt Jr. 62
Neither of these systems allow a driver with the most wins to go to the top
if they haven't followed it up with consistent top 5's and 10's, so they do
reward consistency where consistency should be rewarded, where a driver is
consistently superior. However, neither of the two systems penalize a driver
as much for missing a race, as Mayfield has. Of course, these figures don't
take Mayfield's penalties into account either.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Actually, Rusty was bitchin' last season about how winning doesn't mean
: anything in Nascar. But, ask yourself, who should win the
: championship...the fastest as a whole, all season, or the guy who won a few
: more races, but finished the rest in the middle, or at the back...
The guy who won the most races, unless his other finishes were way back
and the guy who won the second-most races did better in the races he
didn't win (if that makes sense).
It's utterly stupid to have a points system in which a driver who doesn't
win a single race could win the championship.
I've always preferred something like:
1st -- 500 points
2nd -- 350
3rd -- 250
4th -- 200
5th -- 175
6th -- 150
7th -- 125
8th -- 100
9th -- 90
10th - 80
11th - 75
.
.
.
20th - 30
21st - 28
.
.
.
30th - 12
31st - 11
.
.
.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Jizbo Jones wrote in message <398dba9f....@news.prodigy.net>...
: >
: >As a Rusty fan, I shouldn't be bitching, but when the second place
: >finisher earns the same # of points as the winner, there's something
: >amiss.
:
: SOMETIMES I can agree with this, like if 2nd place led the most laps by just one
: or two over the winner, but stop and look at the race Rusty ran.... he was the
: car to beat all day long, I wouldn't go quite as far as to say he dominated, but
: he was pretty much in control, so I think the points worked out pretty good in
: this case, Bobby won, but it was Rusty's race - same points, no problem....
:
:
But BL was faster -- the winner's car always is.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: "Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
: news:8mkk5g$rdf$1...@moonbeam.aecom.yu.edu...
: > definately the guy who won more races. winning is the "name of the game",
: as
: > it were. the points system needs to be fixed.
: >
:
: I've plugged in a lot of different points systems into my Excel sheets and I
: have yet to find one that makes a difference while awarding points to
: everyone who starts. I believe that a system similar to the F1 or CART
The problem is, NASCAR doesn't view the points as finding out who's the
best driver; they view them as a way of keeping "fan interest" until the
end. They have a pretty low opinion of us fans if they think we'd desert
as soon as the championship is clinched.
Jared James Peccarelli
doesn't
> win a single race could win the championship.
Why? Here's an extreme example (but appropriate after the first 11 races
this season):
- 34 races
- 34 different winners
(no driver has *more* than 1 victory)
A driver with no victories wins the championship - note: he/she's won one
less race than the driver with the most victories. Is that an "utterly
stupid...point system"?
> I've always preferred something like:
I've always assumed you prefer only awarding the top six finishers with
points... ;>
Jared
BTW - Based on your system, the 42nd and 43rd finishers receive 0
points...doesn't that seem "utterly stupid"?
> 1st -- 500 points
43Fan
"Renold Jonsin" <Renold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ol5DE2FAAHA.401@cpmsnbbsa08...
>
> "Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8mkk5g$rdf$1...@moonbeam.aecom.yu.edu...
> > definately the guy who won more races. winning is the "name of the
game",
> as
> > it were. the points system needs to be fixed.
> >
>
> I've plugged in a lot of different points systems into my Excel sheets and
I
> have yet to find one that makes a difference while awarding points to
> everyone who starts. I believe that a system similar to the F1 or CART
> systems would go a long way toward rewarding wins and high finishes since
> they only give points to the top 6 and top 12 respectively. This would
> award high finishes and quality consistency as well as clearing out the
> wrecked cars driving around trying to pick up points.
You know, I never thought of that before. If you didn't get points for being
outside say, the top 20(the number you used in the examples below), then
there wouldn't be any need to continue to run if the car was torn up or
something... Wouldn't that in turn save the team's money?
But, would it also cause teams to "decide" to stop racing with say 30-50
laps to go if their only running in 30th(but still in good running
condition), with little to no chance of moving up? They'd be able to save on
tires, fuel, etc... They'd take away the risk of any damage to the car,
etc.., etc.. What would that do to the racing as a whole? I'd imagine the
sponsors would have something to say about it too.. Ya know, when the car is
all torn up and out on the track, seems like the tv cameras seem to get it
in a shot a good bit... hmmmm... now I've confused myself and I'm not sure
which way I think would work! *laffin*
Raistlin Majere
show up?? J/K, that was a great comparison and really does go to show how
the NASCAR point system doesn't really work well. Does anyone know if
they've upgraded the points at all in the "modern era" or has it always been
this way? I could be prejudiced, though, since in all the accounts, Bobby is
still the points leader! Go Green 18!!
Renold Jonsin <Renold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ol5DE2FAAHA.401@cpmsnbbsa08...
<snip>
plugged in a lot of different points systems into my Excel sheets and I
> have yet to find one that makes a difference while awarding points to
> everyone who starts. I believe that a system similar to the F1 or CART
> systems would go a long way toward rewarding wins and high finishes since
> they only give points to the top 6 and top 12 respectively.
<snip>
NASCAR top 13 (includes all winners)
> Bobby Labonte
<snip unimportant drivers>
F1 points has the 12 winners at the top with Ricky
> Rudd in 13th. Rudd is the only driver in the top 10 without a win this
> season.
>
> Driver F1 Points Total
> Bobby Labonte 58
<snip unimportant drivers>
s 10 winners, Rudd, then Kenseth and E Jr.
>
> Driver CART Points Total
> Bobby Labonte 184
<snip unimportant drivers>
Lloyd R. Parker
: > It's utterly stupid to have a points system in which a driver who
: doesn't
: > win a single race could win the championship.
:
: Why? Here's an extreme example (but appropriate after the first 11 races
: this season):
:
: - 34 races
: - 34 different winners
: (no driver has *more* than 1 victory)
:
: A driver with no victories wins the championship - note: he/she's won one
: less race than the driver with the most victories. Is that an "utterly
: stupid...point system"?
Yes. The whole point of racing should be to win races. Any championship
system should be set up to reward winning, not cruising.
:
: > I've always preferred something like:
:
: I've always assumed you prefer only awarding the top six finishers with
: points... ;>
I have no problem cutting the points off at around 20th, but I included
more to assuage those who insist 43th place deserves a point or they'll be
no incentive for teams to show up.
:
: Jared
:
: BTW - Based on your system, the 42nd and 43rd finishers receive 0
: points...doesn't that seem "utterly stupid"?
We can level it off at 1 point, or go to decimal fractions!
:
: > 1st -- 500 points
:
:
Kasper
wrote:
<snip>
How many cars in 30th position got on TV Saturday during the ABC
telecast? Unless a non-contender wrecks, his sponsor gets zip anyhow
on the tv cameras.
Kasper
Sandy Brown
points for leading the most laps (which would encourage guys to go for it, instead
of hanging back until the very end of the race) and points for the guy who wins the
pole (which would encourage teams to have their acts together for qualifying.) The
driver leading the most laps currently only gets 5 points for leading a lap, and
then another 5 for being the dominant driver. So, some backmarker who stays on the
track during a caution and leads only one lap gets 5 fewer points than the guy who
leads the most laps. Also, if you encourage teams to qualify better with the point
bonus, starting lineups could get more interesting, don't you think? ;-)
Food for thought.
Sandy, THT
Lloyd R. Parker
: I personally think that we need two revisions to the current point system: more
: points for leading the most laps (which would encourage guys to go for it, instead
: of hanging back until the very end of the race) and points for the guy who wins the
: pole (which would encourage teams to have their acts together for qualifying.)
Only if you make teams start with the same engine they qualify with;
otherwise winning the pole is meaningless.
: The
: driver leading the most laps currently only gets 5 points for leading a lap, and
: then another 5 for being the dominant driver. So, some backmarker who stays on the
: track during a caution and leads only one lap gets 5 fewer points than the guy who
: leads the most laps.
So just don't award any points for leading under caution.
Ms.Goodwrench
wrote:
I'll add to that -- go to F-1 style qualifiying.
Ms.Goodwrench
Jizbo Jones
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:53:17 GMT, je...@msmisp.com (Ms.Goodwrench)
wrote:
>I'll add to that -- go to F-1 style qualifiying.
Now that would be awesome. Open up the track for say 2 hours (1 hour
like F1 may not be enough for 43 or so cars) and give each driver 4 or
5 shots at best lap. The cars must use race engine and set-up. Any
number of cars allowed out at one time. It would come down to a matter
of running the hot lap under the best conditions (cloud cover, # of
other cars out, etc.) and would be a much better show than the current
one.