BRISTOL, Tenn. -- The man in black would have been known as a great driver, but not necessarily a larger-than-life one. The Intimidator persona would have been a little softer around the edges, if it ever developed. All those No. 3 flags might never have been hoisted. NASCAR's greatest icon would have completed his career as a two-time champion, and perhaps never even emerged as an icon at all.

“

I like the fact that you have to be a consistent front-runner. You do those things on a consistent basis, the more races you run, the more important that becomes.

”

-- JEFF BURTON

You want to emphasize victories more than anything else? You want to determine a champion by race wins, and not a points system? Then be prepared to suffer the consequences. There's no greater evidence of the fallacy of determining a champion exclusively by race wins than the knowledge that Dale Earnhardt -- called NASCAR's "greatest driver ever" by none other than former chairman Bill France Jr. upon his untimely passing at Daytona in 2001 -- would have seen his legendary status severely eroded under such a system.

Recent discussions in Formula One about adopting a championship format based solely on race wins have generated plenty of discussion on the same topic this week at Bristol Motor Speedway. No question, there are many NASCAR fans who pine for such a system, especially after watching Carl Edwards finish second to Jimmie Johnson last season despite amassing two more victories. Let's get this straight right now -- there's no evidence that NASCAR is even remotely considering such an idea, which is just fine with the men who pilot these 3,400-pound stock cars each weekend.

"I think if you determine your champion just based on wins, you're taking a huge gamble of having the wrong champion," Edwards said. "If one guy wins one race and runs 20th in the rest of them, and another guy finishes second in every single race, [the first] is not the right guy for a champion. The more and more I pay attention to all of these changes with all these point systems all over the board, the more I like the Nationwide Series and the Camping World Truck Series, where the guy with the best average finishing position throughout the year wins. I think the farther we get away from that, the bigger the chance of changing our sport to try to fit in with others and I don't think that's best for us."

And this from the guy who would have benefitted the most had such a system been in place last year. Go back through recent NASCAR history, and under a wins-only format titles would have awarded titles to drivers like Kasey Kahne (2006), Greg Biffle (2005), and Ryan Newman (2003). Jeff Gordon would have six titles, with crowns in 1999 (over Dale Jarrett) and 1996 (over Terry Labonte) to go along with the four he has now. Rusty Wallace would have three championships, Tony Stewart just one. And Earnhardt, who did more to make the sport popular among its grassroots fans than anyone else, would have exerted only a fraction of the impact that he ultimately made.

“

I just think it is a different environment, and I am not sure it would work in our form of racing. I think basing it solely on wins is probably a bad idea.

”

-- JIMMIE JOHNSON

Had NASCAR employed the system being debated in F1, Earnhardt would still have his championships in 1990 and 1987. But he would have lost his 1994 and 1993 titles to Wallace, who came up empty despite seasons of eight and 10 victories, respectively. He would have surrendered his 1991 crown to either Davey Allison or Harry Gant, depending on what kind of tiebreaker was used. His 1986 triumph would have instead gone to Tim Richmond. And that 1980 championship, when a 29-year-old Earnhardt claimed an unexpected title that propelled him into better rides with Bud Moore and Richard Childress, would have been celebrated by Cale Yarborough.

Granted, statistics can never accurately reflect the measure of man. Earnhardt was such a presence, such a competitor, that he may very well have shaped the sport even if he had only enjoyed a portion of the success he did. But all those championships gave him credibility. They burnished his reputation, gave the very mention of his name a gravity other drivers could never match, provided him with unparalleled leverage both in NASCAR offices and in the grandstands. Earnhardt became larger than life because of all he did and all he was. Remove one of those from the equation, and you have to wonder if Earnhardt would have been able to mobilize an entire fan base in the way he did.

But the issue goes beyond Earnhardt. F1 is a series where a very few cars have any realistic chance of winning. It's a series with a 17-event schedule and races that are capped at two hours in length. By contract, the Sprint Cup tour is an absolute slog, a 36-event schedule where most races are 400 or 500 miles and take upwards of four hours to complete. Under those conditions, being able to overcome adversity is absolutely as important as winning. In NASCAR, as many championships have been won by salvaging a ninth-place race finish as they have by taking the checkered flag. Track promoters may hate it, fans maybe loathe to admit it, drivers may be frustrated by it, but being able to as squeeze as much as you can out of a less-than-perfect race car is one of the hallmarks of this sport.

"I like the fact that you have to show consistency," Jeff Burton said. "You have to be a consistent front-runner. You do those things on a consistent basis, especially in a series where you run 36 or 38 races. The more races you run, the more important that becomes. If you have a 10-race schedule, then I think that changes things. As the sport goes, we run some of the longest races in the longest year compared to other forms of motorsports. So that means you need a different type of points system. I believe consistency matters."

Johnson agreed. "Initial thoughts are, if they raced 36 times a year, I would be curious to see how their champion would be crowned at that point," he said. "I think they are different worlds. You have three teams that can really win [in F1] and a fourth if it rains. I just think it is a different environment, and I am not sure it would work in our form of racing. I still think we could spread out the points and reward guys for finishing better in the top-three, top-five and keep breaking that out further and go that direction. I think basing it solely on wins is probably a bad idea."

Even the powers-that-be in F1 are beginning to realize that. Three days after the sanctioning body approved the win-only championship format, the idea was deferred because of a unanimous protest by the team owners' association. Talk of a boycott was bandied about. The new system might be implemented next year, it might not. For now, at least, the championship will be awarded similar to the way it is in NASCAR -- to the driver who is most consistent, and not necessarily the one who most often reaches Victory Lane. You'd have to think that Earnhardt, who owes much of his legacy not to his 76 career wins but his defining doggedness and perseverance, would certainly approve.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer.