Can anyone catch Matt Kenseth? Credit: Autostock
By Marty Smith, Turner Sports Interactive
July 22, 2003
5:10 PM EDT (2110 GMT)
Considering the teams that have emerged as champions under NASCAR's current point system, I personally have never had a problem with the concept of awarding yearlong consistency above sporadic trips to Victory Lane. Matter of fact I've unfailingly defended it.
But suddenly I'm not so sure. Matt Kenseth's ever-expanding advantage in the current championship chase has skewed my view of the manner in which Winston Cup Series points are awarded, and ultimately how the title is decided.
Suddenly, I wonder if the point system isn't a bit archaic, and for the first time find myself wide open for debate on the issue.
When the current point system was devised in 1975, Richard Petty was winning half the races on the schedule. Making such a system was ingenious, if not imperative. Without it, no one else was within dreaming distance of a championship.
It's different these days. Today's NASCAR isn't your granddaddy's NASCAR. Used to be seven or eight guys would win in an entire year. Nowadays, given the proper circumstances, 23 or 24 could prevail every week.
Fourteen different drivers have already taken the checkers in '03, and that doesn't include the likes of Kevin Harvick, Jeff Burton, Rusty Wallace, Mark Martin, Sterling Marlin, Terry Labonte, Elliott Sadler, Bill Elliott or Jeremy Mayfield.
 | Contact Marty | | Don't like his opinions? Like his opinions? Got a suggestion for a future Last Lap topic? Drop Marty an email! |
|  | |
|
|
No more will you see a guy win 15 races in a single season. Just won't happen. The competition's too tight. Kenseth won a series-high five races last year and posted just three DNF's, yet finished eighth in the final standings. Meanwhile, champion Tony Stewart won three times and had a series-high six DNF's.
How the...?
Somewhere in the middle Stewart was more consistent. That's how.
Just doesn't seem right, does it? Same deal this year. Ryan Newman and Kurt Busch both have three wins to Kenseth's one, but neither is even within 600 points of Kenseth.
What could be done to the current points system to consistently close the gap a bit?
utlonghorn24: Why in the world would you want to change the point system?? I've noticed here recently that the only thing you people are trying to change are the things that have worked for decades. Such as a little thing I like to call the Gentlemen's Agreement. NASCAR has based itself on tradition and history. I guarantee you if Dale Earnhardt were still with us, he would tell all of you critics to shut up and leave the sport the way it is.
Nobody wants to honor the things in NASCAR that have worked for so long. As far as this discussion goes, leave the points system alone!! I promise that Matt Kenseth will have a bad finish, and when he does, Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., and Bobby Labonte will pounce on the mistake that Matt makes, or whatever happens to him, and make a sizeble gain in the points.
The points system, as has been said many times before, rewards consistency. Which is exactly what Matt has been doing all year. There is no flaw. There is only a driver that is having a heck of a year. The only reason anybody is complaining is because our "beloved" Dale Jr. is dropping like a rock in the standings. So what??
Did you hear any of us Gordon fans complaining in 2000 when he finished 10th in the standings? No. Because the very next year, he came back and won the title by a healthy margin over Tony. So, who knows? After all, Tony came back from a 43rd at the Daytona 500 and won it all, even after Sterling led for 20 some odd weeks. Give Matt some time, and the points battle will become a fight to Homestead.
Well done, T.J. Ford, though if I may, I'd like to add to your response a bit. Like I said, I've long carried a similar mindset, the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" deal.
It ain't broke, but the parity in this sport has evolved so dramatically over the past three or four years -- therefore evening the teams -- that NASCAR should look at rewarding victory more than they currently do.
To me, it's absurd that a team can bust their tails all weekend long, dial in a car, win a race and receive the exact amount of points awarded a runner-up that leads the most laps. I'm not alone in that opinion.
"I think the system has worked well. It's good the way it is. But I would like to see the winner rewarded a little more over second place," Jimmie Johnson said Tuesday. "When I won at California last year, Kurt Busch finished second and led the most laps. We both earned the same amount of points yet I won the race.
"In that case, I think there should be a little bit more of a separation between first and second or someplace there in the top three or top five. When you have 36 races, I think rewarding on consistency is the way to structure things, but I think we could use a little bit more separation at the top five."
Bingo.
I know, I know. It's fine how it's always been and it's always worked and you don't hear drivers complaining and last year's race came down to the last lap of the last race and blah, blah, blah.
I hear all that, and there's plenty of validity to it. I just think it's time to investigate the possibility of further rewarding the difficulty of winning at the Winston Cup level. Everything else in NASCAR has undergone an evolution, why not the point system?
"I don't know, man," laughed Kevin Harvick Tuesday morning. "It's one of those things where our season is so long, and if you don't reward for consistency it really creates a whole different atmosphere of the style of the way you race. I don't know.
"That's a hard question to answer, honestly. It's kind of like the restrictor plate approach for me. I don't know of a better system, so I guess I'm a big fan of 'if it's not broke, don't fix it.' And in the end, it rewards the person who had the best 36 weeks, not a guy who won three times and had seven DNFs."
As I mentioned earlier, that's exactly what happened to Stewart last year and he still won the cookie jar, mostly because Kenseth finished 30th or worse 11 times to Stewart's five.
Some scoff at the process.
Senna21: I really think the points system in NASCAR is pathetic. My opinion: Pay points for top 20 with the winner getting 40 points and second 38 etc etc down to 20th. This would eliminate all those wrecked cars running around getting in the way.
One point for pole and one for leading the most laps. This would keep the points chase close, it would also reward the winner and make them race harder because from 20 down there are NO POINTS AT ALL.
Pathetic is far too harsh, Ayrton, but I love the idea of cutting off points at a certain number, say 30th position. As you say, that would help alleviate the current predicament of mangled machines returning to the track after accidents in hopes of gaining a few positions, and would produce heated competition near the rear of the field as guys race like hell for 30th.
That said, the current system has worked extremely well for nearly 30 years, and props go out to Bob Latford and the boys for conjuring it up on a bar napkin. (How killer is that).
But as I've said, NASCAR has evolved tremendously in virtually every aspect over the past several years, making winning exponentially more difficult than it was even three years ago.
Think I'm wrong? Ask Jeff Gordon, winner of 13 races in 1998.
"We all strive to win, but you need to have a competitive car each week and finish in the top five or top 10 (in points)," Gordon said. "I still think it's possible to win a bunch of races -- maybe eight or nine -- but 13 is next to impossible and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Everything has to line up just right.
"The car has to be great, the team has to make all the right calls in the pits and the cautions need to fall in your favor. I'd say all of those lined up perfectly in six or seven of those wins (in 1998). I'd say we just flat wore them out in the others because we had the best car. Today, it's difficult to win even with the best car."
Essentially, winning requires 500 miles of perfection. Hmm. That's definitely not the simplest task known to man, so why not show 'em more than five points' love?
Ryanzgurl: I think that all the current points system is doing is rewarding drivers for staying in the middle of the pack and not wrecking. If any driver just strived to be in the top ten every race, and not gun for the win and risk anything, does that person deserve the championship more than someone who has 4-5 wins and 4-5 DNF's?(which, a lot of the times is NOT the driver's fault)
I mean, the two guys with the most wins are 8th and 13th respectively. This is because each of them has had their fair share of bad luck on the track.
First, I think that there should be more points awarded for a win. I also think bonus points should be given for number winning the pole. (and not by default!)
Second, I think the points handed out for each place should be a little more spaced out. The point increments are too small in the first fifteen places. There is only 47 points separating 1st from 15th. I realize this would make it harder for the more mediocre (or unlucky) teams to get ahead, but if those first 5 or 7 positions were worth a lot more, then all it would take is a couple of really good finishes to catch up.
Per the usual, Newman's lil' lady offers an excellent, well thought-out response. Most certainly the current system rewards drivers who conserve equipment and get the most out of a car -- without overdriving it.
That's what makes Kenseth and Gordon so good. If they have a third-place car, they strive to finish third. Not second, not first. If the guys ahead of them falter, it's considered icing.
Same deal if they're driving a 12th-place car. As Newamanette said, less than 60 points (it's actually 57, not 47. And yes, I used a calculator) separates first from 15th in the final running order every Sunday, so posting the best finish under the particular circumstances you're in is crucial.
Now, about awarding points for poles: Several of you shared the sentiment that pole-winners, and drivers that make up the most positions during a given race, should be given some sort of point reward.
And being that teams usually spend an entire practice on qualifying setup, I can agree that a reward is justifiable.
That would be a legitimate hypothetical answer to closing up the current gap in the Winston Cup Series. Kenseth is admittedly a subpar qualifier, while Gordon is accomplished in the trade. Not including rainouts, Kenseth has one Bud Pole since the 2000 season to Gordon's 13.
Man, think how much those extra pole points would help Ryan Newman...
97o97o97: Whoa, back the chuckwagon up! Now the points system is a *mockery* because Matt Kenseth has been able to rack up a nice lead? We need to promote parity in the points system? Do you remember last year? How did the system get broken in the last half season? Kenseth absolutely deserves his big lead. Have you looked at the number of top-5s? Top-10s? No one is better, so why shouldn't he be up front? If you want to talk about parity, let's get back to the body styles and not the points system. At the present time, here are the makes of the top 7 drivers:
Ford
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Chevy
Parity?
Anyway, I wouldn't disagree with a slight shift in the points system to reward the winners more and maybe drop off points after 30th, I strongly disagree with the Last Lap question as posed this week. Rock on.
Whoa, Kurt, take your Ritalin. Yes, Kenseth deserves the points lead under the current system, considering he's finished outside the top 10 just four times in 19 races. Those that discount Kenseth's 2003 success point to the fact, however, that he's yet to experience significant trouble and most every championship run includes at least one three-race bump-in-the-road.
Thing is, his bumps in the road are supposed to be superspeedways and road courses, on which he has an emerged unscathed in four of the six-such events to date in 2003 with an average finish of 12th. Just Watkins Glen and the fall thriller at Talladega remain. Could get interesting...
And yes, I remember last year, making it tough to argue with this cat:
Nascar08: I do not believe the point system should be changed. It has worked fine for a long time. Just because something has been around for awhile does not mean that it is flawed.
I never said it was flawed, per se, simply suggested an upgrade could be in order since the sport has undergone such rash change in recent years.
Rest assured, this isn't your daddy's NASCAR.
|
