Posted on 02/12/2004 6:24:34 PM PST by foreverfree
Change is good for NASCAR
Commentary by CARY ESTES
BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD
Dale Jarrett calls himself "a traditionalist" in explaining why he dislikes the changes NASCAR has made this year to the circuit's points system.
Funny, I think that is the same reason some auto-racing snobs gave for not wanting NASCAR to invade the hallowed ground of Indianapolis Motor Speedway. According to tradition, the home of the Indy 500 was a place for open-wheel cars only. Why should anybody want things to change?
Of course, that argument seems silly now, considering the huge success of NASCAR's annual Brickyard 400 at the track. NASCAR took a chance and, as usually happens in the sport, it paid of big-time.
NASCAR has driven all over tradition in recent years. And while some old-timers like Jarrett complain, the results seemingly always end up being positive.
The same thing will happen with the new points system, which divides the season into a 26-race regular season and a 10-race postseason. After race No. 26, the top-10 in the point standings (along with any driver within 400 points of first place) will have their points re-adjusted to bring them closer together, then those drivers will compete for the title over the final 10 races.
Many drivers and quite a few fans have expressed their displeasure — if not outright anger — at the new system. They thought the old set-up of steadily accumulating points over the entire season worked fine.
Again, why should anybody want things to change?
Simple. The old system was as boring as C-SPAN. Rarely was there any drama in the points chase over the final month or so of the season. And even when there was true competition for the championship, it involved only two or three drivers.
Now it is realistic to expect there to be a half-dozen drivers still in contention for the title entering the season-ending race. The nine races leading up to that point should offer more thrilling moments.
Nobody will be able to coast to the championship, the way Matt Kenseth did last year.
How is this a bad thing?
The main argument I have heard against the system is that anybody who is not in the top-10 after race No. 26 will have no incentive over the final 10 races.
That's ridiculous. To quote New York Jets coach Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game." Being out of contention for the championship never has stopped drivers in the past from winning races.
In 2001, Joe Nemechek was in 31st place in the point standings when he won the November race at Rockingham, N.C.
From Steve Park to Mike Skinner, there is a long list of mediocre drivers who have continued to compete and race hard long after they were out of title contention (which for those two usually is sometime in March). That will not change. Once a driver gets on the track, his competitive instincts will kick in. He will be racing to win, just like always.
Another complaint is that the new system might not determine a true season champion. Say, for example, that a top-10 driver is 350 points out of first place after race No. 26. Suddenly the points are adjusted and he is only 50 points behind. Then he gets on a hot streak over the final 10 races and barely wins the title. Under the old system, he still would have finished nearly 300 points behind.
Some people say that is not fair. I say, so what? You want everything to be fair, then give all the teams the same amount of money and put all the drivers in IROC cars. This is about entertainment, and there is no doubt that this new system is going to provide some significant entertainment.
Besides, underdogs who have overcome the odds and pulled off the upset have provided sports with some of its greatest moments, from the New York Jets in 1969 to the Villanova basketball team in 1985 to the Florida Marlins in 2003. Sometimes the best team doesn't win, and that's OK. It keeps things interesting.
Using Jarrett's "tradition" logic, NASCAR never should have expanded to such places as Chicago and Los Angeles (and Indianapolis), never should have allowed companies to sponsor individual races, never should have let television dictate what time races started. And never allowed drivers to make millions of dollars a year.
Think that is the type of tradition Jarrett would like to preserve?
I liken the point adjustment for the 10-race dash to the finish to making the NASCAR "playoffs." Are Busch and Craftsman using this new format, too?
foreverfree
I agree with Kenseth, the last 10 races aren't representative of the tracks they race the whole season on. This is just so that more teams than ever have a shot at the championship.
Are Busch and Craftsman using this new format, too?
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.