Click
here to go to the table of contents.On this page:
The Points System: International Controversy
The Coca-Cola 600 was, according to all accounts, a heck of a race. Only problem is, I missed the whole thing. I have to agree with Tim "Guns don't kill people, I kill people" S. that a sport isn't as big as it claims to be when its premiere events are airing on TBS and TNN. All I got was occasional updates on nascar.com. Looks like Burton dominated the race, something that comes as no surprise to anyone. This really is his year. Maybe he'll fade in the second half, but I don't see that happening.
Texas Thunder Bobby Labonte came in second, which is pretty good in NASCAR terms. I'm starting to agree with Tim and Duncan, however, that being a bridesmaid but never a bride gets lame after a while. Bobby's at that top level, obviously, but it's not going to mean much if he doesn't start taking some checkered flags.
The real story of the day was Bobby's teammate, rookie Tony Stewart. If you aren't on the number 20 Home Depot bandwagon yet, you need to get onboard before it blasts off (there's a nicely mixed metaphor for you). He raced the Indy Loserhundred from noon to 3 pm, then he flew down to Charlotte and raced in a real man's car from 6 pm to 11 pm. He was so dehydrated they had to pull him out of his Home Depot machine after the race was over. He was ninth at Indy, fourth at Charlotte. That's got to be some kind of record. I expect his picture to appear on every two-by-four sold by Home Depot before Independence Day.
The other big story was DNF's. Gordon collected another one, much to the pleasure of non-Gordon fans everywhere. I shattered all concepts of reality by chosing Gordon as my DNF, because I knew the only way he would lose the race was by not finishing. Irvan got close to finishing, but he found something in his engine to break in the final laps. Lots of DNF points for y'all. Bodine was also as consistent as ever, getting into two wrecks.
I asked y'all to say in your comments what you thought about the Winston Cup points system, in which the winner gets only five or ten more points than the dude who finishes second (for a complete breakdown of the points system, go to my points explanation page). Tim and Duncan, being the iconoclasts that they are, questioned in emails the value of this system. Here's some highlights from those initial incendiary emails:
[From Tim S] I admit, I am not a NASCAR expert (though my picks may say otherwise), but I do know a thing or two about competition and the desire to win. This argument that Texas Thunder is a great driver b/c he almost wins every week is absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone care how many career points The King, Richard Petty, had? Of course not. On the other hand, your average Joe can tell you that he won 200 races. That's what it's all about. In this life, everything is about winning. Jim Kelly went to 4 straight Super Bowls, but he'll be lucky if he makes the Hall of Fame. John Elway had lost 3 Super Bowls and was considered a loser. Then, the Broncos draft an exceptional running back who leads them to 2 Super Bowl victories, and Elway is now mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky (which is also absurd). When it's all said and done, people only remember winners. As Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
[From Duncan] I too must agree with Tim. I believe that NASCAR should award more points for a win. It is truly the American way. In no other aspect of American life or sport is consistency without victory rewarded. Professional wrestling? No, either you win the belt or not. Though the championship points race should matter and still shows which driver is the most consistent, NASCAR needs to give more incentive to win a race. Too often you get drivers content to cruise in third place rather than really do some racing because there is no incentive to risk crashing to gain a measely five points. But if you knew you could gain 50 you would bust your ass to pass the last two guys. The points championship is, in part, in place to allow all the drivers to "stay close" even when somebody is smokin' them every week on the track.
These two hellcats have touched off a firestorm. Could it be that NASCAR's legendary points system is not all it's cracked up to be? Would races be more competitive if there was a greater reward for winning? Let's see what y'all had to say.
[Kevin K.] Not everyone is a "winner" simply for competing. Just because Ricky Rudd manages to lurch the Tidemobile across the finish line an hour after everyone else has gone home, that doesn't mean we all have to jump up and down like the overproud parents screaming "Yeah, Ricky! You're a WINNER!" Our culture may never rise above the level where Fox's "World's Craziest Groin Crunches" is a top show, but our sports will always be number one. So, yes, the winner of a NASCAR race should get a lot more points for winning a race than some slacker who putters in fifth every time.
Gee, that Ricky Rudd argument is pretty good. But have you looked at the points lately? Rudd's poor performance is reflected by the fact that he has about as many points in NASCAR as David H. has on his license. Still, Kevin's point is well taken.
[Sean F.] So now all of a sudden 2 NASCAR pipsqueaks think they have a better idea than the founding father of NASCAR, Big Bill France. Boys, the current points system may not be perfect, but it's served NASCAR well for 50 years.
Sean stands for the establishment, despite the fact that his team (number 24) would benefit the most from a system with greater rewards for the winner. Interesting.
[Sharon] I don't think winning the individual events is more important than the overall points standing, but I like the idea of bonus points. But rather than just extra points for the winner, there should be a sportsmanship/character bonus for those drivers who race with class. For it's not just who wins, but how the race is run.
Not a bad idea, but maybe the reverse would be more appropriate: penalize drivers who race in an unsportsmanlike way. In either case, however, you'd have the problem of judging who's been good and who's been bad. That might best be left to Santa. But at least you're thinking outside the box, Sharon "Box o' wine" H.
[Neil] I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of rewarding the winner of a race in order to make the drivers more agressive. However, I think the 50 point idea is about as intelligent as making Jar-Jar a major character.
[Ryan] thank you for asking - i as well agree with lawyer boy and the drunk wonder that more points should be assesed to the winner - no mamby pamby crap - all out old school racing - aggressive, mean, cheating for all you gots, likker runnin', drunk on 'shine, "smokey look out for that dang bandit on your tail" --- racing
!Looks like these two fellows side with Tim and Duncan on this one. If only they'd sober up, we could take them seriously.
[Nathan] You should get more points if you win the race. Not 50, that's too many. What the hell was Duncan drinking when he came up with that idea? Duncan: are you on the canned heat again? I could see maybe 20 or 25, but 50 is uncalled for. Let's meet after school in the playground and settle this like true NASCAR fans would: breaking pool cues over each others' backs. Chevy rules! Seriously, what is more American than NASCAR? And what is America all about? Winning. Nobody cares who comes in second. Smokey! You been eating corn?
In all fairness to Duncan, his revised plan calls for giving 25 extra points. I like the pool cues idea, though. Now we're talkin' country!
[My mom] The points race is the only right way to do it. Those guys who do really well week after week, year after year, are either doing something right or they are just jinxed.
I don't follow the logic here, but when have I ever known what my mom is talking about? I'm just glad when she doesn't throw my jacket out on the front lawn.
It looks like we've got a few fans who like the current system, but most of y'all would like to see some change in the points system. Now let me solve the whole problem for you.
(Thanks to Sean for pointing out the name thing.)
This whole mess involves two questions: a) should more points be awarded to winners to increase their incentive to race hard, and b) what does it mean to be a winner.
The real question, as far as the points go, is whether increasing the points for winning a race would make racing more competitive and therefore more entertaining. According to the higher points theory, more points would make winning more desirable, and guys would take more risks and race harder to try and get that win. If a racer was truly dominant, like Jeff Gordon was last year, then the points would reflect that by having Gordon as much as a thousand points ahead of the rest of the pack.
As far as I know, the most exciting, competitive NASCAR race ever took place in 1979 at Daytona. On the last lap there were two guys way out ahead of everyone else. Those drivers were Cale Yarborough and Bobby Allison. In that last lap they were side by side, bumping here and there, but neither driver was able to jump out ahead of the other for more than half a second or so. They start bumping more and more, and next thing you know they're bamming into each other with tremendous force, trying to blast their opponent off the track. Before reaching the finish line they wreck each other right out of the race, allowing then-third-place Richard Petty to cruise by them for the win. They get out of their cars, make sure the other driver is okay, and then get into a big country-style brawl (Nathan's pool cues would've been useful there).
As you know, Daytona is the first race of the year. The winner would get 180 points, the second-place finisher would get 175. It really didn't matter who won as far as the points go, because there'd only be a five-point difference between first and second. But points were not an issue: these two guys were hellbent on winning. They wanted the win so bad they were willing to risk killing themselves over it. Do you think either one of them thought "Oh, I'll just die if I don't get those bonus points!"? I doubt it.
Let's say they did increase the points awarded for winning. That would make a win more important, but why? Because you'd get more points. You'd be placing even more emphasis on the points race with the new system. How else can drivers be rewarded? Money. Lots and lots of money. And guess what drivers get right now if they win a race: Money. Lots and lots of money. Jeff Burton's winning of the Coca-Cola 600 earned him about $1.5 million. And that's just race winnings. That doesn't include bonuses from his sponsors and the leverage he'll gain in future contract negotiations. Does he really need any more incentive to race hard?
Taking more risks might be more exciting in some instances, but think of the cautions. We already have Joe and Ernie and Ricky crashing us into boredom. Do we want to have half of every race run under yellow? Everyone's car would be beat up. By the end of the race they'd be whipping around the track at 45 miles per hour. NASCAR makes every effort possible to minimize the number and scale of the wrecks. I don't think they're going to give drivers any incentives to drive wrecklessly. This isn't basketball, where a hard push gets you a girly little foul. You make a dumb move at 200 miles per hour and you could get someone killed.
Now let's tackle the other issue: what does it mean to be a winner? Several of you proclaimed that winning is the American way, that winning is what America is all about, that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Stop living in a Gatorade commercial, y'all. You sound like those lame soccer dads who yell at their kids when they lose to the Shelbyville Spartans. The American way is about doing the very best you can, day in and day out. This brave new world you proclaim is about exclusion. America is about inclusion.
Let's look at some losers. According to the Vince Lombardi theory, no one remembers a loser. Let's take Will Perdue and Patrick Ewing. Will has several NBA championship rings. Ewing has zippo. Who will you remember five years from now? General Robert E. Lee was probably the biggest loser in American history, right? I mean, he lost a whole country. Then why is he the most venerated of any American war figure? And those bums at the Alamo. They got their butts kicked by the Mexican army. But I'll bet y'all can name at least two of the men who died there.
The arm-chair quarterbacks and the beer-swilling meatheads only remember the winners. Who cares? I admire winners, but I also admire people who put forth their best effort while maintaining true character. I don't need the fetid masses to remind me of people of true character. I remember them, regardless of whether they win or lose. Sure, winning is great, but it's not everything. Quit trying to live outside of history, people.
It was an exciting week in our points race. Thanks to many DNF's, lot's of y'all picked up those sweet bonus points. We had scores in the fifties like crazy. Sharon, the woman from Indiana, won the prize. William recorded an unusual DNF, allowing his much-hated foe Neil to inch ever closer.
|
Name & Position |
Points |
|
1. Sharon |
65 (awesome) |
|
2. Kevin K. |
55 |
|
2. Sean |
55 |
|
2. Duncan |
55 |
|
2. Sandro |
55 |
|
6. Nathan |
50 |
|
7. Chris |
45 |
|
8. Tim |
40 |
|
8. Guy |
40 (another good week) |
|
10. Ryan |
35 |
|
11. Neil |
30 |
|
11. Mom |
30 (parents in the dregs again) |
|
11. Dad |
30 |
Sharon's big win this week allowed her to shoot up to a tie for fourth place, dropping Tim back a spot. Chris continues to dive, losing two places this week. My Dad picked up as spot on Will, who DNF'd this week, and Duncan continued his climb to the top. Sean extended his lead a tad again this week, putting Nathan out of first by 15 points.
|
Name & Pos. |
Total Points |
Position Last Week |
Number of Starts |
Average Points per Start |
|
1. Sean |
575 |
1 |
12 |
47.9 |
|
2. Nathan |
560 |
2 |
12 |
46.7 |
|
3. Sandro |
495 |
3 |
12 |
41.3 |
|
4. Sharon |
455 |
7 |
12 |
37.9 |
|
4. Kevin K. |
455 |
4 |
11 |
41.4 |
|
6. Chris |
445 |
4 |
12 |
37.1 |
|
7. Tim |
435 |
6 |
11 |
39.6 |
|
8. Dad |
390 |
9 |
12 |
32.5 |
|
9. Will |
370 |
8 |
9 |
41.1 |
|
10. Mom |
355 |
10 |
12 |
29.6 |
|
11. Duncan |
330 |
12 |
8 |
41.3 |
|
12. Neil |
310 |
11 |
12 |
25.8 |
|
13. Ryan |
245 |
13 |
9 |
27.2 |
|
14. Guy |
200 |
14 |
5 |
40 |
Click here to go back to the top of this page.
Click here to go to the table of contents.