There's nothing exciting or thrilling about NASCAR's new points system, which the organization announced Wednesday night.
As always, consistency takes precedence over winning. But consistency has always been a priority. Show up and keep showing up and keep running well and you'll beat the up and down speedster who wins more races but hits more walls.
The new system is easy to understand -- the first-place finisher gets 43 points, the last place finisher one point. Various bonus points will be awarded.
But the premise remains the same. Avoid early wrecks and bottom-feeding finishes and, when it's time, make your move.
I thought, based on last season's horrendous attendance and television ratings, NASCAR might try something more daring. But the organization believes in the product.
We'll find out soon whether fans do.
Two....count them, TWO NASCAR articles on the Panthers page...does the Observer know no shame? Please fire Tom and Scott immediately. It's quite obvious that they have run out of pithy, irrelevant topics to talk about.
Posted by: JR | January 27, 2011 at 09:10 AM
Give Scott and Tom a break. Remember - they're just opinion guys, not real sports writers. Expecting them to be topical or to report on real sports issues isn't very fair.
Posted by: catfandave | January 27, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Here is yet another glaring example of how the "yes men" at the Observer fail at their jobs. You could have posted a REAL story about the failure of NASCAR to heed the fans warnings, but nooooooooo. Let's keep kissing the hand that feeds us. Tom, you are a COWARD. Quit your job. Do us all a favor.
Posted by: F TOM | January 27, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Maybe they should just give out points to the Top 5. 10 to the winner, 4 for second, 3 for third, 2 for 4th, and 1 for 5th. Then lets see who races for the win !
Posted by: Mark Tolley | January 28, 2011 at 07:17 AM
I've been saying this all over this website for days, and I'll keep saying it. NASCAR brass is far more concerned with making sure we all know who the boss is than getting things right. Otherwise, restrictor plates would have been banned after one of the 5 best drivers of all time was killed because of them, and they would have listened to the people who have been saying for forever that this point system has been obsolete for more than 20 years.
Back in the '60s and '70s, they were racing 40-50 times a year. The super-studs like Petty & Pearson were prohibitive favorites whenever they showed up. The point system was devised to prevent guys like that from showing up for 20 races, winning 10 of them and walking away with the trophy. By the '80s, they were down to 29 races and sponsor money was big enough that everyone always raced the full schedule. At that point, a new point system was needed.
If it were me, this is how it would go: 100 points for the winner, 75 for 2nd, then -1 point for each position 3-30. NO points for leading 1 lap or for finishing worse than 30th. No money for finishing worse than 30th either. Keep the 5 points for leading the most laps. That way, winning gets the reward it deserves, and you no longer have "start and park" cars, or cars that get in a bad wreck, and come back on the track with half a car, getting in everyone's way and causing debris cautions that alter the outcome of the race.
This "rewarding consistency" is about the same as baseball awarding playoff positions based on largest run differential instead of wins. After all, the team with the largest difference between runs scored and runs allowed is the most "consistent," isn't it? Yes, that's dumb. Just about as dumb as the NASCAR point system.
Posted by: J | January 28, 2011 at 09:47 AM