Final Turn: Rather have victories or consistency?

Formula One recently made headlines by announcing a change to its points system, which would now crown a champion based solely on the number of wins a driver had. The owners in Formula One threatened to boycott if this occurred, so the idea has been shelved for now, but could be revisited again in the future.

The question of a wins-based championship was posed to NASCAR drivers this weekend at Bristol and everyone was in agreement, the system just wouldn't work for the sport. There are too many races and too many drivers to make it fair -- a title should be based on consistency.

Humbling thought

A wins-based championship would completely alter history, writes David Caraviello.

• Complete story
• Video: Drivers weigh in

But is it good enough to just be consistent?

Clint Bowyer has been running at the finish for 78 consecutive races -- the current active leader. Yet, despite making the Chase the last two years, Bowyer's best points finish is third.

The modern-era record holder for consistency is Kevin Harvick, who finished 81 consecutive races from September 2006 to February 2009 -- a stretch where his best point finish was fourth.

Ironically, in those streaks, Harvick has just one win and Bowyer has two.

Obviously just being consistent isn't enough in Cup racing, you have to win races. But that doesn't always equal success either.

Kyle Busch has 14 wins and Carl Edwards has 16 wins since 2005 -- third and second in the Cup Series, respectively, yet they are titleless as well. Busch's best point finish is fourth and Edwards' is third.

The one exception to this is Jimmie Johnson. Johnson leads all drivers with 26 wins since 2005 and has three titles. He's also been a model of consistency with just five DNFs in his three championship seasons.

So what is the best way to a title -- collect a bunch of wins or just be consistent?

Final Turn: Which is more important, wins or consistency?
• Your Turn: Join the discussion!