The F1 system is based on rewarding good finishes. It only counts the top eight and forgets about the rest. This is the current 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system that was designed in 2003. I know that NASCAR fields 43 cars per race, so only scoring the top eight seems extreme, but it's an interesting example to use here. This is what the standings would look like if NASCAR used the F1 standard:
In the table above, we find that Mark Martin would still be in the thick of the title race without needing any Chase reset. Kyle Busch would be up there as well. And we'd see current Chase drivers like Greg Biffle and Brian Vickers outside the top 12.
This is my point. If Martin and Stewart are basically tied here, based on their top eight finishes, but the current system has them more than 400 points apart (not Chase adjusted), then doesn't that just show that the current system is more interested in punishing bad finishes rather than rewarding good ones?
Do we really want our champion to be the guy who was "least bad on his bad days" or the guy who was "the absolute best on his good days"?
No Chase format change or awarding of bonus points for wins is going to fix that. As long as the current system of awarding positions 1-43 points stays the same, people will still complain, perhaps correctly, that the champion isn't a true reflection of the best car. I'm not saying we should use the F1 system, I'm just saying we should use it as a comparison to what we have, and then ask ourselves, “What makes more sense?”
No comments:
Post a Comment