Speedcouch Forum

General Discussions => TV Talk => Topic started by: sally on July 24, 2004, 01:59:40 AM



Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 24, 2004, 01:59:40 AM
I don't know about anyone else, but NBC/TNT have had race coverage for 2 weeks, and I'm already tired of their hard sell of the "countdown" to the final 10 races!!!!!  I wish that some one could organise a boycott...the next race at NH...the first "final 10", and turn off the TV to let Nascar know what we think of this stupid Crapshoot!
Sally :?


Title: Chase?
Post by: Michael on July 24, 2004, 05:50:23 AM
I know that the cutoff point for the "Chase" is still 8 races away, but I think it's ridiculous that half the drivers in the top 10 are over 400 points behind the leader. The "Chase"'s premise was all of the top 10 and anybody else within 400 points. There's problem #1.

Here's problem #2: Bobby Labonte and Kevin Harvick are 6th and 8th...with no wins. McSwain just got fired, and it takes awhile for a driver and a new crew chief, so I don't see that "0" in Bobby's win column changing anytime soon, which, of course, sucks because I like Bobby. Harvick, meanwhile, can go crawl in a hole.

Anyway, what I'm saying is, if NASCAR must have this dumb "Chase", then it needs to make some major adjustments: only drivers within 400 points of the leader are in, and anyone with no wins is automatically disqualified from "Chase" eligibility...even if they're in second, one point behind the leader at the cutoff point.


Title: Chase?
Post by: Desmond on July 24, 2004, 08:51:56 AM
Darrell Waltrip has  suggested that all drivers that have won a race this year should be eligible for the Chase, regardless of their position in the standings.  That's a modification of Michael's post.


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 24, 2004, 12:21:26 PM
If Brian France knew anything about the "entertainment" he runs, he would know that only once in 30 years has there been more than 10 drivers within 400 points of the leader with 10 races left to run (whatever the point system used).  When Tony Stewart won the title, there were 12 drivers within that range.  And his bif deal was that as many as 20 drivers could  be eligible?  Right.  
Sally :?


Title: Chase?
Post by: Michael on July 25, 2004, 05:41:47 AM
Quote from: "Desmond"
Darrell Waltrip has  suggested that all drivers that have won a race this year should be eligible for the Chase, regardless of their position in the standings.  That's a modification of Michael's post.


Eh, a tad skeptical about that.


Title: Chase?
Post by: marrtinigirl on July 26, 2004, 05:01:21 AM
Once again, we are placing importance on wins instead of consistency.  BLab and Harvick are in the top 10 because they have finished consistently.

Isn't the whole thing that got us into this mess the fact that Matt Keseth won the championship with only one win?  If we start focusing more and more on wins, where does that put us with consistency?  Getting the job done, week after week, without a win certainly requires as much hard work as winning one race.

Why don't we just do away with the whole points system and give the championship to the person with the most wins?  And if two drivers are tied for wins, we can look at past winners or perhaps more poles?  

It isn't all about winning races, and it shouldn't be.


Title: Chase?
Post by: BAM24/25 on July 26, 2004, 04:01:56 PM
I liked the point system the way it was.  If they want to acknowledge wins more, than give them additional points for a win.


Title: Chase?
Post by: marrtinigirl on July 26, 2004, 04:59:21 PM
I completely agree with you.  I don't think wins shouldn't count, but I do believe that running consistently in the top ten or top five week after week could and should get you a championship, as it did Matt Kenseth.  And I really hope Matt wins this year just to show 'em.


Title: Chase?
Post by: BAM24/25 on July 26, 2004, 06:06:07 PM
Well you know whoever does win they will constantly have to deal with the "if this was the old system, you would not have won" argument.  So I hope the winner would have won under either system which means about now that would be Jimmie, Junior or Jeff depending on how they race these last 18 races.  The others I think are too far back to overtake all three of them unless they all simultaneously implode. (As you can tell from my name you know who I am rooting for :wink: )


Title: Chase?
Post by: Vivian on July 26, 2004, 08:10:26 PM
Yes, all the hype about the "Chase" to the "Chase" and then the "Chase for the Championship" is being rammed down our throats at a very fast pace.  I am already tired of it as I can see they are focusing on just a few drivers.  Staci, like you I hate it that consistancy is out and other stuff is in.  I think it was Jamie McMurray on Wind Tunnel (someone correct me if I am wrong) that said he thinks the leaders losing all those points is just bad.  He did not seem to like the chase plan.  (I'm also sure others don't like it but they are afraid to say so.)  And I don't think it was because of where he is in points.  Did anyone else see him?  He made another good point.  Being young is good and he is gonna try his hardest because it won't be like the "old" days when drivers stayed around forever.  He said it won't be that long before they are looking for someone younger than the current young drivers and they will be lucky if their career lasts 5 years.  This is not verbatim, just as I remember from last week.  He is one smart young man and seems to have his focus right and plans for the future going in the right direction.  

Beth, you made a good point also about having to live with whether or not they would have won under the old system.


Title: Chase?
Post by: marrtinigirl on July 27, 2004, 12:49:48 AM
Absolutely true!!  I agree that I too, hope whoever wins would have won either way.  Course, if that does happen, I can only imagine what they are going to do to "make it more exciting" for next year.  Oy.


Title: Chase?
Post by: John on July 27, 2004, 01:38:48 PM
I agree with the idea of giving more points to the winner, even 25 points ahead of 2nd place and spread out the points for the top 10 to give more incentive to go after that next position.  They should also give less points for the cars that end up getting wrecked and then go out after getting "duck taped" just to make laps.  Hopefully that would help keep those drivers out of the road of the leaders.

Whether you like the new points system or not, it's there.  We can't expect NBC/TNT to ignore it.  They didn't ignore the old system for the last couple of years and they even played it up when there was nothing to talk about.  It is the same idea as something happening with Tony Stewart or some other news story, they are going to give it attention because that is what the "big story" is.

I guess it was designed to create interest in a championship challenge earlier in the season, which it has.  When was the last time you talked about a championship in the middle of the season?  Under the old system, the most that would be talked about at this point was who had such a bad season that they are out of it now.

Also, this isn't the only time in NASCAR that there has been a change in points systems.  It's just that the old one was in place for about 24 years.  In 1972, Richard Petty won with 8701.40 points!  How did they figure the ".40" points?  And I'm sure that when the current, old system came into existance, people would have been asking the first champion (whom I think was Richard Petty in 1975?), well if this was the old system ... .

Vivian, I saw Jamie on Wind Tunnell and I like his openness about current events and especially the way does not like to go on about his sponsors instead of telling reporters how his car was or the things we really want to hear.

Trying to keep an open mind to the new system, what I find interesting is how the different teams are getting ready for the last 10 races.  But who knows what is going to happen until November rolls around.  And chances are that this current system will be adjusted if NASCAR gets poked in that direction.


Title: Chase?
Post by: Cheryl on July 27, 2004, 02:46:54 PM
Quote from: "John"
When was the last time you talked about a championship in the middle of the season?  Under the old system, the most that would be talked about at this point was who had such a bad season that they are out of it now.


I guess I must be the odd one then, cause I always watched the points every race until November, even if the leader had a big lead, I still found it interesting to see how 2-whatever were doing.  Or I just watch each race to enjoy the competition for that win.  

Also, exactly how many points is the winner getting this year?  I know they are awarding them more, but neither TV network even mentions it anymore.  I asked Lou the other day and neither one of us could remember.  I think it is 15 or 20 extra for winnig this year.  Talk about the TV networks dropping the ball on that tidbit!

Cheryl


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 27, 2004, 03:35:14 PM
How teams are getting ready for the Crapshoot?  The top 3 are using the last 7 races as test sessions, since they don't have to worry about dropping out of the top 10.  Jr could have sat out the last race..or Pocono, for that matter, and not changed the standings significantly.

Like Cheryl, I watched every race of every season, no matter what the points positions.  I watch because I like to watch racing.  The championship os almost secondary to good, hard racing.  Those days are long gone, never to return.
Sally


Title: Chase?
Post by: Desmond on July 27, 2004, 04:05:39 PM
A win is now worth five extra points.  This is much fewer than I expected when NASCAR first hinted that they would change the points system.

However, this is not as bad as resetting the points after Race 26, so that a 10th-place driver way back in the points is now just 45 points behind the leader.


Title: Chase?
Post by: kgregg on July 27, 2004, 07:59:29 PM
Quote from: "John"

I guess it was designed to create interest in a championship challenge earlier in the season, which it has.


It was designed to boost ratings after Labor Day when the NFL starts up and fewer people watch the races.  

I don't really like the idea of the "Chase" but am willing to see how the rest of this season unfolds before passing judgement on the format.   Kevin


Title: Chase?
Post by: Vivian on July 27, 2004, 08:20:58 PM
I kind of always kept an eye on the points, but never put much stock in them until later in the year.  I remember the year Tony won and none of the media even talked about him being champion until the last couple of races.  They were zeroed in on Mark Martin.  Desmond is correct, it is only 5 points more for the winner and I think it should be more.  In the last ten races, I guess consistancy will rule; but I would like to see a 36 race consistancy instead.  Bet the people who are not running for the C4C won't have much tv exposure the last 10 races.  In the past you could sort of figure out who was going to be the champion and that will be impossible now and it will just depend on who does not have engine, trans or any other car problems, plus whether or not they can avoid track incidents and I guess the drama will be there indeed.  Notice how Kenseth always stays clean and avoids most incidents?  No, not my prediction, but something to think about...... :wink:


Title: Chase?
Post by: John on July 27, 2004, 08:24:50 PM
I'm glad I had some quotes reposted.  How do you do that anyway?

I agree with Sally, the championship was really a side story.  If I had to choose between a championship and good racing, give me good racing.  It is hard to make statistical information exciting.  I have seen grass growing that was more interesting than some championships.  :D

Once someone wins the championship it's glory for the month of November and a bit of news leading up to Daytona.  The next season, what attention is paid to the current champion? It is pretty well forgotten after that.  It's great to look back in a history book, but really, a champion is remembered during the current season as much as the race winner from 2 weeks ago and then forgotten.

Tony Stewart is a champion, but what is he remembered for?  Even DW is a 3 time champion, but he is remembered as being an annoying announcer more than a champion.  Too Bad.


Title: Chase?
Post by: Vivian on July 27, 2004, 08:40:50 PM
John, I don't know how to do that either.  Somebody, please help us!

Yes, give me good racing anytime.  As far as the champion, they are after the money I think plus to make their resume look good, moreso than the glory, but I have been known to be wrong so maybe not.... :lol:


Title: Chase?
Post by: kgregg on July 27, 2004, 08:44:03 PM
Quote from: "Vivian"
John, I don't know how to do that either.  Somebody, please help us!


Click the "quote" button on right hand side of the window.  

How can a rookie like me know this but not you grizzled veterans?  :wink:

Kevin


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 27, 2004, 08:44:50 PM
I'm with you, John.  The championship was just the icing on the cake.  The real reward was seeing good races.  I'm not going to care who "wins" this title, since a 10 race "champ" means nothing to me.
Sally


Title: Chase?
Post by: ronbarnes77 on July 27, 2004, 09:09:01 PM
good point sally sounds like people think that this season's champ will be devalued right?


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 27, 2004, 09:12:16 PM
I can only ask what's more impressive to you?  A team that is consistantly good over a 36 race season, or one that happens to get lucky over 10?
Sally


Title: Chase?
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2004, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: "marrtinigirl"
Once again, we are placing importance on wins instead of consistency.  BLab and Harvick are in the top 10 because they have finished consistently.


I'm not saying consistency is bad. It's fine. I don't know how to add to this other than to say if I were to win a Nextel Cup championship without winning at least once, as great a feeling as it would be, it just wouldn't feel like a full championships without at least one win. There. That's the best I could build on that.

That being said, I hope whoever is leading at the cutoff point, whether he has a win or not, picks up and runs off with the title because that means the experiment this "Chase" is has failed.

But if you ask anybody in the garage about winning a title with no race win, they'll say it doesn't feel complete because they didn't win a race. 1 win or 12, every champion wants to have at least one race win in his championship season.


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 28, 2004, 03:20:31 AM
You have a point there, but winning races isn't the be-all and end'all to me.  Last year Ryan Newman won 8 races...and DNF'd at least that many times.  If you can't finish races, you shouldn't be the champion.  I believe it's much harder to finish consistantly high in the standings for the entire season.  Win - crash - win - crash...no champ.  I think the old formula was a much better indicator of who did the best for the entire season... just seems like a much bigger deal to me.  The fact that Matt Kenseth "only" won one race last year didn't bother me at all.  The fact that he could have so many good finishes for the entire season is what makes him a true champion to me.

Earlier someone mentioned about all the various point systems that Nascar has used over the years.  Yes, BUT whatever it was, it took an entire season to win the title...not 10 races.

Sally


Title: Chase?
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2004, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: "sally"
You have a point there, but winning races isn't the be-all and end'all to me.  Last year Ryan Newman won 8 races...and DNF'd at least that many times.  If you can't finish races, you shouldn't be the champion.  I believe it's much harder to finish consistantly high in the standings for the entire season.  Win - crash - win - crash...no champ.  I think the old formula was a much better indicator of who did the best for the entire season... just seems like a much bigger deal to me.  The fact that Matt Kenseth "only" won one race last year didn't bother me at all.  The fact that he could have so many good finishes for the entire season is what makes him a true champion to me.

Earlier someone mentioned about all the various point systems that Nascar has used over the years.  Yes, BUT whatever it was, it took an entire season to win the title...not 10 races.

Sally


Kenseth winning once and taking the title didn't bother me either because it was Roush finally winning a Winston Cup title without getting screwed by the officials beforehand. I also agree that even if you win 10 races, yet still manage to hit the wall on many occasions, you don't deserve to be champion. That's a lot of bullcrap to me that the guy with the most races should win the championship. Michael Schumacher in Formula 1 is the only exception to that rule. Then again, Mika Hakkinen led in wins in F1 during his title runs in 1998 and '99. Damon Hill in 1996. Jacques Villeneuve in 1997, and so on. Paul Tracy won the most races in Champ Cars last year while taking the title. But all those are exceptions because they run under 20 events a year, while NASCAR teams have 36 races to work with. In Champ Cars and F1, winning the most races is almost a given to a championship because no one else can catch you. In NASCAR, if you don't step it up in the consistency department, kiss the championship goodbye.


Title: Chase?
Post by: John on July 28, 2004, 03:44:35 AM
Quote from: "kgregg"
Quote from: "Vivian"
John, I don't know how to do that either.  Somebody, please help us!


Click the "quote" button on right hand side of the window.  

How can a rookie like me know this but not you grizzled veterans?  :wink:

Kevin


Oh my God that is so simple!  Duh!  Thanks Kevin.  I'm not even close to being grizzled let alone a veteran.

Hey Vivian, like Kevin said, look at each message at the top and look over to the right, there's the quote button.


Title: Chase?
Post by: sally on July 28, 2004, 12:06:21 PM
John, you're right on!  The fact that the Cup season it at least half again as long as the season for most other major series is one of the things that makes a season long run so impressive.  That, and the fact that Cup races are generally much longer than other series.  Indy cars only have 1 500 mile race, and I don't think CART (or whatever they are now) has any at all, xince they don't race at MIS, and F1 is usually under 200 miles.  The number of races and the miles they run are a BIG difference.  At least, until Brian France decides that, to accommodate TV, there will be no races longer than 300 miles.  It has already been discussed, you know.
Sally


Title: Good Article by Mulhern
Post by: Cheryl on July 28, 2004, 01:58:36 PM
Here's a good article by Mike Mulhern about the "chase."  I agree that the racing has been more lackluster than in past years.  

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031776953905&path=!sports!autoracing&s=1037645509202

Cheryl


Title: Chase?
Post by: ronbarnes77 on July 28, 2004, 03:29:13 PM
hey sally you're right about the length of the season it's one of things that first drew me to the sport


Title: Chase?
Post by: Desmond on July 28, 2004, 03:58:56 PM
The same Mulhern article mentioned that much of the 676 acres purchased by ISC for the possible new track on Staten Island are underwater.  Insert your own Brian France joke here :lol: