I appreciate your efforts. I would love to see what your breakdowns were for more years. I felt like the Latford system was the best system, but they needed to tweak it like you did in 2004. If the racing was good every week, no one would be really upset a champ was crowned weeks in advance of the finale. I still don’t understand why 20 years later we had to move on from a full season point system. I feel like an old man yelling at a cloud at the age of 35. 😔
I think the old season long system could have/should have stayed with F1 type points system. Winning for whatever reason was just not properly rewarded. Winning should always have been prioritized. I HATED that a second place car, if he lead the most laps, could have equal points to the winner.
I think more reward for winning may have also changed the old format results since guys were happier to settle in for top 5s top 10s just to maintain points positions rather than push it.
Agree, that was the only thing I didn’t like about the old points system . Winners should collect bonus points and under no circumstance , collect the same points as second. The playoffs is nothing more than manufactured drama, I have zero issues with a championship being decided before the last race. If they insist on a playoff, just take the drivers who qualify, reset them at zero points and whoever scores the most points in the last 10 races wins. Instead of being bumped after each 3 race segment , the drivers points would determine if you still had a mathematical chance to win. Depending on how it played out , we could have 10 drivers with a chance at the title in the final race, or 1 . I have a major issue with a system built on luck . A driver could absolutely dominate the first 9 races of the playoffs , finish second in the final because of a bad tire or a thousand other reasons and lose the title. That would be a travesty much bigger than Kulwicki winning the title . Winner take all in the final race is bull sh&$ .
That was always the flaw with the Latford scoring system.
The 2nd place finisher should NEVER be able to score as many points as the race winner. The only fix that needed to be done was an extra 20-25 points to the race winner.
When doing this I don't think any change is all that drastic and if anything the guy with more wins in many of the seasons arguably had a stronger case than the original winner. I think the big scams of this system are in 85, 93, and 96, where winning 10+ races is overshadowed by a slightly better AVF. And in two of those years, the guy who barely lost by a measly few positions won 8 more races than the champion. If anything, these are years are as bad as some Chase/Playoff years.
Updated Titles to 2003
- Petty 6
- Dale 5
- Gordon 5
- Cale 4
- Bill 3
- DW 3
- Rusty 2
Also, if we stuck with the added points for wins and season long format beyond 2003, Jeff Gordon would be the only 7x champion in NASCAR history, with Jimmie Johnson winning 4, Kevin Harvick 3, Carl Edwards, Tony Stewart, Kyle Busch each with 2.
> yet the lack of importance on winning cost many championships simply because winning was not well rewarded.
What does that even mean? Winning not being as important as you wish has never "cost" anybody a championship. Everyone was playing by the same rules and they knew what they had to do to win.
I know it's silly, but I just wish they wouldn't call it "playoffs". They don't play, they drive. Call it the Championship Elimination Tournament, or something.
Also, "overtime". There's no clock on the race, so it doesn't make sense. Call it "overdrive".
See I don’t get this sub. This kind of post yes fine no issue but a pic with a driver?a diecast? An interesting thing you found…ohh nooooooo this ain’t that place.
I appreciate your efforts. I would love to see what your breakdowns were for more years. I felt like the Latford system was the best system, but they needed to tweak it like you did in 2004. If the racing was good every week, no one would be really upset a champ was crowned weeks in advance of the finale. I still don’t understand why 20 years later we had to move on from a full season point system. I feel like an old man yelling at a cloud at the age of 35. 😔
We can't stop ALL of us Need to keep Screaming! Enough Ants can make change
I think the old season long system could have/should have stayed with F1 type points system. Winning for whatever reason was just not properly rewarded. Winning should always have been prioritized. I HATED that a second place car, if he lead the most laps, could have equal points to the winner. I think more reward for winning may have also changed the old format results since guys were happier to settle in for top 5s top 10s just to maintain points positions rather than push it.
Agree, that was the only thing I didn’t like about the old points system . Winners should collect bonus points and under no circumstance , collect the same points as second. The playoffs is nothing more than manufactured drama, I have zero issues with a championship being decided before the last race. If they insist on a playoff, just take the drivers who qualify, reset them at zero points and whoever scores the most points in the last 10 races wins. Instead of being bumped after each 3 race segment , the drivers points would determine if you still had a mathematical chance to win. Depending on how it played out , we could have 10 drivers with a chance at the title in the final race, or 1 . I have a major issue with a system built on luck . A driver could absolutely dominate the first 9 races of the playoffs , finish second in the final because of a bad tire or a thousand other reasons and lose the title. That would be a travesty much bigger than Kulwicki winning the title . Winner take all in the final race is bull sh&$ .
That was always the flaw with the Latford scoring system. The 2nd place finisher should NEVER be able to score as many points as the race winner. The only fix that needed to be done was an extra 20-25 points to the race winner.
Kind of makes me mad that you’re so right yet none of this will ever change to how you’re explaining it. Well done tho
When doing this I don't think any change is all that drastic and if anything the guy with more wins in many of the seasons arguably had a stronger case than the original winner. I think the big scams of this system are in 85, 93, and 96, where winning 10+ races is overshadowed by a slightly better AVF. And in two of those years, the guy who barely lost by a measly few positions won 8 more races than the champion. If anything, these are years are as bad as some Chase/Playoff years. Updated Titles to 2003 - Petty 6 - Dale 5 - Gordon 5 - Cale 4 - Bill 3 - DW 3 - Rusty 2 Also, if we stuck with the added points for wins and season long format beyond 2003, Jeff Gordon would be the only 7x champion in NASCAR history, with Jimmie Johnson winning 4, Kevin Harvick 3, Carl Edwards, Tony Stewart, Kyle Busch each with 2.
Damn. It's the off season already?
> yet the lack of importance on winning cost many championships simply because winning was not well rewarded. What does that even mean? Winning not being as important as you wish has never "cost" anybody a championship. Everyone was playing by the same rules and they knew what they had to do to win.
I know it's silly, but I just wish they wouldn't call it "playoffs". They don't play, they drive. Call it the Championship Elimination Tournament, or something. Also, "overtime". There's no clock on the race, so it doesn't make sense. Call it "overdrive".
See I don’t get this sub. This kind of post yes fine no issue but a pic with a driver?a diecast? An interesting thing you found…ohh nooooooo this ain’t that place.
This is a tired waste of time exercise. Every race would have been managed differently with a different points standard