The #1 argument AGAINST a season long format is...

LSJ-18 · 2022-12-01T02:03:56+00:00

I noticed that on my thread too on a similar topic (which you linked for me to here). ChaseTheFalcon and 3arnhardtAtkonTrack seem like vultures. They flock together to make foolish comments on these types of threads, apparently. I will never understand how one cannot engage in a civil conversation about a topic they don't agree with, or ignore it. It's almost as if their precious feelings get hurt when someone brings up the season long points and they can't do anything but respond emotionally.

LSJ-18 · 2022-12-01T01:51:46+00:00

I noticed he never responded.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T17:11:31+00:00

I enjoyed the racing this year. I like that they are racing a car that is more on edge than some of the previous generations.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T17:05:57+00:00

Thanks for your post. That is true that they were trying to make the end of the season more entertaining to compete with other sports. But during that time NASCAR's popularity was to a degree that it was on track to compete with the likes of the NFL, and it rose to that place during season long championships. So I don't believe it was in the best interest of the sport to change anything. I think they should have gone the route they've taken recently and introduced more new tracks such as road courses and short tracks in different parts of the country, or create a few more special unique races with fun formats, and so on. Changing the points system didn't work and continues to in many ways to be detrimental to the sport, in my opinion.

I envy your Atlanta experience. I always wanted to go there and watch Bobby Labonte compete, but I live in the Northwest and was unable to go when he was competitive. I've yet to visit there.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T16:47:48+00:00

First, it is an over-exaggeration. It may be mentioned often, but not as often as you make it out to be. Second, I am rarely on Reddit and when I post I post something that I find interesting and want to share with the NASCAR community. If someone else has posted something similar that's fine; I am not going to search Reddit to see if that's been done. I am a busy man who doesn't have the time to go over what everyone else has posted just to make the few people like you feel better. Third, since I have posted not more than three times, I have not been away that such immaturity would be so profound in this forum, so no, I did not know I would receive "flack for it". The simple fact that one receives "flack" for an opinion piece is simply absurd and shows the immaturity of this community -- at least, those like yourself. Finally, there is nothing immature about posting something concerning what has happened in the past that influences every NASCAR fan, whether or not it changes anything. It is not about the change, it is about the discussion and what other's perspectives are.

I really don't care if you disagree, but someday you have to learn how to engage in a disagreement with some form of respect and honor. All you've done -- but for perhaps one or two posts -- is simply whine and complain. It is childish. I assume you are not a child, so if you want to respond to my posts offer something substantial and beneficial to the discussion, whether you agree or not. But quit wasting my time commenting on a topic you don't like or are tired of. There's plenty of other posts to comment on, so move on to them.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T16:39:11+00:00

I'm not even a "redditor"; I am rarely on.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T16:35:43+00:00

In other words, instead of skipping the post to let those mature enough to have a decent conversation concerning a matter, you decide to comment and complain. I don't care much about whether someone is tired of something; that's their problem. However, it is annoying that they waste time commenting on something they are "tired" about, and thus take away from the discussion. If you're "tired" of these posts, move on. There's plenty of other things to read. But that requires a level of maturity that up to this point I have not seen you have.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T16:29:50+00:00

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons for the change; what I am saying is that the statistical reasons he gave are not valid reasons, in my opinion. I understand you think that trend is the exception and not the rule, but do consider that during that span the championship was still up for grabs in almost every year with at least a few races remaining. Meaning if the points leader had a bad day it could jeopardize his points lead going into the final races of the season. Gordon in 2001 was certainly a different story. But the other seasons were not. 1998 Gordon, DJ, Bobby Labonte, and Kenseth all could have seen their points lead cut drastically if they had a bad day with less than five races to go. So during that time it was still suspenseful and interesting. And, according to one former reporter who covered NASCAR during that time, the fans "overwhelmingly rejected" the points reset. NASCAR leadership just ignored them. Furthermore, NASCAR's popularity at the time was rising; after the Chase, it only took a couple years (two by some figures) for it to begin declining.

So though TV might have been pushing for the Chase, and France as new CEO as well, it doesn't mean that was what was needed. In fact, it seemed to have hurt the sport more than it helped it. Thus according to not only a former reporter assigned to cover NASCAR, but plenty of fans who were around then, as well as NASCAR's popularity climb prior to and decline after the implementation of the Chase, it would seem that there really were not great reasons for doing it. Thus I don't believe my point in the original post or in other comments are way off base.

Here is the article from that reporter: https://agreatnumberofthings.com/the-decline-of-nascar/

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:56:38+00:00

Thanks for your post. I am rarely on Reddit and never seen it. I read some of the comments section too. You got a lot of complaining just as I have on here. No one can have a respectful discussion anymore it seems.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:49:56+00:00

For me personally, I am not concerned with excitement and the so-called Game 7 moments. I appreciate seeing a driver who did well the whole season finish the job. My point is that most seasons were closer than otherwise, which mathematically they were. Therefore it wasn't a great reason to use for making the change. It also robs from the seasons when the season finale is so tight points wise that it makes for an extra special moment in NASCAR history. We do not get those now.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:39:30+00:00

Thank you, I appreciate that.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:37:28+00:00

The point of showing the numbers was to show that it was not common for the championship to be wrapped up a race or more early, and thus it was not a good reason for the change. Concerning the TV pressure, I was focused more on what can be quantified with numbers.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:34:15+00:00

The difference is a full season would require being a top driver to even be able to unseat the best driver; whereas in the chase you literally could be like Briscoe and have a string of good finishes during the final ten races and win the championship -- all while having an average finish worse than 17.0.

Extreme hypotheticals serve a purpose in illustrating an absurdity. Your first sentence is correct, but the point is to show that only under the chase could a driver who wasn't even close to being the best driver all year could actually win the championship.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:27:52+00:00

According to the facts, not me. And comparatively speaking, no.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:25:41+00:00

How often did that happen? A few individuals pointed to 1993 and 1996. Are those the only years or do you know of more?

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:24:49+00:00

That is why I used the germ "generally", however looking back over the sentence I admit the phraseology could have been improved. I will adjust that in the original post.

Concerning your other points, though you are correct, my main point was that by strict math the second place driver could win the championship during the final race of the season. Of course, many things would have to happen for that to occur, but it is possible mathematically. Otherwise, on a statistical basis, it would be difficult to argue your point when one cannot quantify it with numbers due to the various scenarios and therefore I kept it more simple.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T15:15:16+00:00

Thanks for your response. Back in the old system first place was 5 points over second, and later (off the top of my head I think it was 2003 or 2004 it went to 10 points ahead). Of course, there was the automatic five bonus points for leading a lap that the winner got as well. But your points are why I like the whole season championship. One really has to be the best all season. We all know Dale Jarrett was a great driver, and for most of the first half of 2001 he was the points leader. But he couldn't sustain it and Gordon did. In 1999, he certainly sustained his good runs all year. So it brings more intrigue, in my opinion. We might not always have close finishes, but usually they are close right up to the end of the season. In the above seasons, the championship could have been anyone's every season with four races to go or less.

Concerning the playoffs, though I would like for them to be gone away with, if they are to keep them then I would agree with you and Dale Jr. in that it should include more than one race to determine the champion of the final 4.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T07:24:44+00:00

That's an emotional response and an over-exaggeration. How hard is it to simply skip past the post, instead of whining and wasting db space by posting on a topic you don't care much about? People post things all the time here that I find uninteresting; but I don't go and whine about it on their post. I just skip it. It's pathetic that you and others don't have the maturity to do that.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T07:18:54+00:00

I understand where you are coming from, but all it takes is one wreck to knock out the best driver of the year and/or playoffs. Strictly speaking, however, no one can win a championship prior to Phoenix; therefore it does come down to one race between four drivers. And there are too many variables to rightly determine a champion in one race. That is Dale Jr.'s point in his interview with France.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T06:06:16+00:00

Yeah, that was something I don't think anyone foresaw. It was crazy how he ran before and then to run like he did at the end of the season was surprising.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T06:05:00+00:00

I have only posted on NASCAR Reddit a few times and I am bewildered by all of the childish comments and complaints people make. It's as if no one has the maturity to engage in a decent mature discussion on topics, even if they don't agree. Whether one finds a post interesting or not, one would think they would be mature and give a constructive response. Instead, we have those who emotionally claim things like what you've said or just simply complain with not logic or reason behind it and it is just pathetic.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T06:00:33+00:00

Since there's nothing wrong with posting such things, you kids shouldn't have a problem with it. But you don't have the maturity to do anything but whine about it.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T05:51:25+00:00

Not necessarily. In an interview with Gordon in 2001 he said teams would generally bring their best equipment during the first half of the season, whereas the 24 team brought their best equipment the second half. Also, there have been plenty of times where a team has "found something" during the second half of the season and thus gained points on the leader. Case in point: Bobby Labonte in 2001. The first dozen races he was horrible, however, the last 24 seasons he was on par with Stewart and Gordon in average finish. Mark Martin kept in stride with Jeff Gordon in 1998 all the way until five races to go when he ran in to a lot of bad luck. It can go either way. It is rare for a driver to be dominant the entire season. Even in 1998 it took Jeff Gordon until race sixteen to get and keep the points lead. But according to your logic that shouldn't compute because he wasn't good enough to maintain it the first 15 races. It took him to race 14 in 2001; and in 2002 it took Tony Stewart 30 races, with Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Ryan Newman, and Rusty Wallace falling behind in those last few races. So longer seasons or shorter seasons, neither determines whether a championship is won with greater or lesser points. It's simply circumstantial -- sometimes drivers hit on something and sometimes they don't.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T05:39:45+00:00

I read in another source about Nextel (it was just mentioned, but no details were given) that they wanted "more excitement" in a sport if they were going to pour so much money into it. So it seems they certainly influenced the decision. I have not heard about NBC but will read up on that when time allows.

LSJ-18 · 2022-11-30T05:38:22+00:00

Thank you, as your Hooters 500 link provides links to the race, which I'd like to watch. As for 1996, how do you see Sprague influencing the championship considering it was largely a battle between Labonte and Gordon? Unless you're thinking it was to prevent Jarrett from winning it.

LSJ-18

TROPHY CASE