I don't care what anyone says, the points system should value finishing as high as possible. Champions rarely are crowned purely on wins, but by being consistent, and minimising their bad days. the 2017 V8 Supercars Championship for example is, in my opinion, decided by the Bathurst 1000. Both Scott McLaughlin and Jamie Whincup had awful days there, but Jamie managed to get the better over Scott because his bad day at Bathurst still netted him 80 points, whilst Scott had a donut. likewise, Scott had a bad round at the finale, missing out on the championship because of a late race penalty after finishing on track in the exact position he needed to win the championship (P11 or something like that). Put simply, Drivers and Teams should be incentivised to repair their cars and get back on track and finish to maximise points, as every point matters come the end of the year. It can be painful, but the team that wins the championship should be the team that did the best job at maximising their points throughout the year. The team that didn't give up, and the team that repaired their car for a P34 finish whilst the 2 retirements were their championship rivals, because that is how a championship is won.
If nascar keeps the same regular season points system they have now for an entire year with no playoffs, it would be the best points system as it rewards winning and running up front more. It would also legitimize the series to where drivers and manufacturers from around the world would want to come in and participate trust me!
This is why I'm keeping track of my own points system this year. It's a marriage of Elimination Style, the Latford System, and the "Wild Card" Format used in the early "Chase for the Sprint Cup" years.
1997 is a great example. Mark Martin had the best average finish and he got 3rd in the championship. Bonus points for leading laps are what bit him. Mark should’ve been a 3 time champion. 1990, 1997, 2002
@@racingwithjoeAside from 1971, no season is completely unanimous. Every other year has at least one other potential champion depending on what system you use. With that being said, using my preferred method for determining who the best driver was (highest average driver rating, which obviously is unknowable for certain prior to 2005, but can be guessed to a reasonable extent based on average running position), 40 out of 75 seasons were won by the best driver.
@@VGF80 Not to mention, A) there was never a winless champion under the Latford Winston Cup format, and B) the driver who won the most races on the year won the championship more often under the Latford Winston Cup format than under the Playoffs.
@@Kuromori-v9zNot every other system. Under 1972's system, which gave bonuses for laps completed, Denny Hamlin would have won by about 150 points. The 25 bonus points for wins added in '73 would have been enough to give it back to Larson though. While there's no way to run the numbers thanks to NASCAR not giving out purse information, I doubt he'd win under 1974's ridiculous system either.
Here's how I would do My Points Format, were Going Back to a Full Season Points Format, 1st - 150 2nd - 125 3rd - 100 4th - 80 5th - 60 6th - 45 7th - 35 8th - 30 9th - 25 10th - 20 11th - 18 12th - 16 13th - 14 14th - 12 15th - 11 16th - 10 17th - 9 18th - 8 19th - 7 20th - 6 21st - 5 22nd - 4 23rd - 3 24th - 2 25th - 1 Note No Bonus for Leading Laps and this is an F1 Style Points Format
I have to say this there's no such thing as an undeserved champion everyone knew the rules when the season started and played by them perfectly yes is the format flawed absolutely there's things that need to be changed but I hate when people discard someone for winning the championship because it's not the Winston format guess what Bozo that is also a very flawed format every format has its flaws we just have to suck it up yes again I agree there should be changes but I just hate when people discard Championship runs like they're not impressive that any driver that wins the championship in any format is impressive they have to race their butt off and 100% just to win it which is hard to do from Blaney to Kurt Busch every single one of these drivers had to go through trials and tribulations to win their Championship under the chase/playoff format Sorry I went on a long tangent I had to say this I really hate the people that say anyone that wins a championship on playoffs or the Chase format are undeserved it's fucking annoying as hell.
I agree for the most part and that’s why I put quotes around “illegitimate” champions. The points system itself is what is potentially illegitimate, but the champions deservingly won under that potentially illegitimate system
The wrench I like throwing into the legitimacy debate is the fact that provisionals, charters, and any form of automatic qualifying had already ruined the competition on the grounds that a car that cant even qualify on speed shouldnt be able to compete. Look at 2003 Kenseth. 7 times he used a provisional to qualify. 3 of those he led a lap. Even if he didn do anything else those days its over 200 points he was guaranteed.
4 дня назад+7
I always find it fascinating how the Wikipedia entry is used as an image quote. Greetings from the author of these tables. Great video :-)
That’s awesome you make those! Yeah, definitely the best image of the old points system I could find
4 дня назад+2
@@racingwithjoe Thx. 6 years ago there was only one list for Formula 1, so I decided to make separate lists for NASCAR and IndyCar. I think I will make a similar list for the Australian SuperCars as well, as they also used a lot of different point systems.
Even under a point system that rewards winning far more (for example F1 points or Indycar's), 1984 still goes to Terry Labonte, albeit narrowly. 1994 also still goes to Earnhardt quite easily.
94 if Ernie irvan doesn’t get injured at Michigan, they might have battled for the title. It’s a title my friends and I debate sometimes. Who would win if irvan doesn’t have his crash at Michigan
Am I gonna say that postseason formats are good in Nascar? Not really, but I still believe that every championship in the sports history is equally legitimate (aside from Kyle Busch in 2015). Every driver knows what the rules are, and drive with a different mindset compared to other formats. So while I do completely understand why people would think that some championships aren’t as legitimate as others, I respectfully disagree.
Really NASCAR needs to decide whether to emphasize competition or entertainment-and if it emphasizes either one the system still needs to be easy to follow. I would say that success ballast combined with a yearlong format could solve most of the sport’s problems-look at JGTC/Super GT if you want a prime example of how that leads to exciting racing, allows an endless technological arms race similar to F1 while keeping the field close (and allows for innovation that SOMETIMES trickles down to road cars), AND keeps sponsors and teams happy (basically any team that perseveres long enough will basically be guaranteed a championship-it’s just a matter of WHEN)…
The thing about dominance and dynasties in NASCAR (and any sport for that matter) is that there are usually all kinds of outside factors, especially regarding championships and their supposed legitimacy. For example, the 48 team of Jimmie Johnson and Chad Knaus built its strategy around the Chase for the Cup during the seasons Johnson won the championship, just like how in the pre-chase era NASCAR teams would start points-racing (driving more conservatively and settling for Top 10s due to the relative lack of points incentive to go for wins) around August or September if they had at least a one race points lead by that part of the season. Johnson and Knaus were smart enough to recognize that with the Chase, the ideal time to peak would be late October. That and Johnson almost won the championship in his rookie season (2002), which is considered THE MOST competitive season in NASCAR history (he was only done in by mechanical failures). Of course, in this example the 48 team was helped by the fact that the Johnson/Knaus pairing was the only one to remain intact from 2004 to 2010, whereas other driver/crew chief combinations that could have taken at least 10 wins and/or 1-2 championships away imploded (most notably the #12 team of Ryan Newman and Matt Borland, the #20 team of Tony Stewart and Greg Zippadeli, and the #97 team of Kurt Busch and Jimmy Fennig). This was of course also the case for Richard Petty (who frequently had a car with 100 hp more than rivals in the 60s), Dale Earnhardt (who was the first NASCAR driver who truly mastered the art of psychological warfare in racing), and Jeff Gordon (whose main POTENTIAL rivals in the late 90s either died in 1993 (Davey Allison and Alan Kulwicki), were hampered by injuries (Ernie Irvan in 1994 and Dale Earnhardt in 1996), or became owner-drivers and experienced major downturns in performance (Ricky Rudd, Bill Elliott, and Geoff Bodine)-also Gordon was younger than his main rivals by about 10-15 years and thus had greater physical fitness and stamina behind the wheel, while the #24 team was the first to truly adjust to the new meta of aerodynamics and downforce).
NASCAR fans are the type of fans who will get mad over a 16 seed upsetting a 1 seed in March Madness and claim the 16 seed shouldn't be there and that we need to change the system because of that.
nascar is not football, or baseball, or futbol, or any regular sport. before the chase it was consistency that won championship. they did something different and it made for good tv, so your argument is dead in the water 😂
To me the whole point of racing is to win, riding around and being ‘consistent’ is meaningless. The championship should go to the driver with the most wins, and if there is a tie on win number then average finish can be the tie breaker. No gimmicks, no formulas, just the straightforward goal of winning. To those who always preach consistency, think of this on the micro level - does the race trophy go to the guy who lead the most laps or the guy to who leads the last lap? In the scale of an individual race, the last lap and the win is all that matters. This should be the same mindset when called out to the full season as well.
So you're telling me: -Someone won 6 races and then had 30 LAST PLACE FINISHES. -Someone wins 5 racess and then had 31 2nd place finishes. You believe the 6 win driver should win the title despite having an unquestionably worse season?
@@IrishmanGFSEveryone always throws out these types of extreme theoretical examples when discussing the points formats. But in reality, as this video shows, every historical example has the contenders much closer than those theoreticals. The debate should be either a driver with 1 win and a 10th place average finish should get the championship over a driver with 8 wins and a 13th place average finish. Cause that is the exact scenario that put us in this position with Matt Kenseth and Ryan Newman respectively. Do you really value a 3 position difference in consistency points more than 7 extra wins? Playing it safe and riding around in 6th place all day and not pushing hard to win flies in the face of everything that racing is about. If you went back and did a theoretical and gave the championship to the most winning driver each year over the last 20 years, you wouldn’t find an ‘undeserving’ champion anywhere which is what this video and debate is all about. I can respect your opinion if you believe otherwise, but even in your extreme example I would still give the championship to the driver with the most wins. The reason they race is to win, in your scenario Diver 1 beat Driver 2 five times and Driver 2 beat Driver 1 six times. Second place is just the first loser as they say, and consistency points to me just rewards losing.
@@CountryMiles Let's use 2003 then. In the 36 races they faced each other in 2003. Kenseth beat Newman 22 to 14. Kenseth finished worse than 30th 3 times in the entire season. Newman finished worse than 30th *7* times. Whats even more telling is how many times they finished worse than 20th Newman: 11 Kenseth: 4 In essence, yes. I do value that 3 position difference. The only reason Newman was that close in av Fin was his wins. Take those out and his av finish is abysmal
@@IrishmanGFS so your argument is "well, if you make believe he didn't get the 8 Wins he had, then he wasn't as good"? RUclips needs a laugh reaction. Bad.
@@djbatchler4597 He was not as good as kenseth that year. If he was, he'd dogwalk everyone for the title. Wins are not everything in a season of 36 races.
playoff system has to go as well as stages ruins the flow and takes away from the number off laps under green you can have a caution 2 laps before a stage break and still have a caution for the stage in 2 laps the latford system was good but probably needed just some tweaks give winners more points make it significantly more to incentivize wins give out bonus points at the end of the season for different stats most wins most top 5s highest avg finishing pos ect. need to go back to less chaos not every race needs to be a game 7 moment takes away from the excitement of a natural occuring one and nascar needs to stop with the manufactured drama with phantom cautions for no reason at least be consistent with them
@@tracktimemedia no especially because racing has so many things out a drivers control. Mechanical failures, flat tires, getting caught in other driver’s accidents plus others.
@@tracktimemedia significantly increase points for top 5s and even more for wins. Remove the worst 7 finishes from counting in the standings for each driver (7 is 20% of the season). The old system was designed to incentivize drivers to race in every race because back in the days the stars would skip the lower purse races and just do the high purse races, thats why it rewarded good but unremarkable performance. Thats how Rusty Wallace or Jeff Gordon can win 10 races or Bill Elliott win 11 of 28 races (39% of races won) and not win the championship.
You could win 35 out of 36 races and then blow a tire on the last lap after leading every lap of the finale and not be the champion with the playoffs. That is a joke
Under The Latford System Jeff Gordon would be The One as The 3rd Driver with 7 Championships alongside Dale Earnhardt & Richard Petty while Jimmie Johnson would only have 3 Championships. Which is still phenomenal Nevertheless.
Technically speaking, if the Latford system had always been used, Petty would only have six. He'd pick up '63, but lose '72 and '74. You could also argue that Earnhardt only won six, since Martin scored more points in 1990 without the penalty.
On the other series Matt Crafton won the Truck series Play Offs without winning a single race. Austin Dillon also won the Xfinity title in 2013 without a single win. Yes, I know that was pre play off format but still worth noting.
The playoff system they have now to me seems purely for ratings, not what's best for the sport. Plus, just resetting everyone for the chase or playoff is like stopping a marathon to get the top runners back together for the last mile to hash it out 😤 lol. Ruins all the hard work 1st place did to have a big lead
Fixed points was the best version. It SHOULD be all about consistency.
3 дня назад+1
My idea for a new format: Divide the 36 season races into 9 blocks of 4 races each. In each block, points are awarded for stages and results in each race according to the current system. At the end of each 4-race block, the following points are awarded to the best 10 drivers (with the most points in the block): 22 - 18 - 15 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 1 Plus 2 bonus points for each race win in the block. So a driver can collect 30 points per block at maximum. The champion is then the driver who has collected the most block points at the end of the year.
the nascar playoffs is probably the one reason I sometimes prefer f1 to nascar on a random weekend i will like nascar more but when it comes to the last race I'm worried the deserving champion will not become the champion but that isn't possible in f1
I would argue, NASCAR has better driver/team competitiveness than most sports. The downside is the Championship format is ridiculous. F1 isn't as competitive, but it at least rewards the guy that dominates the season.
If NASCAR used F1 points, David Pearson would have won the 1973 championship while skipping 10 races. I do like their system better than anything NASCAR has ever had, but it's not immune to questionable champions.
@@seannolan9857 just make it so you have to run every race to win the championship Also kyle missed a bunch of races the year he won it so i don't think its just the f1 format
The reason why I like the latford system was because it was simple. Drives get points, most points at the end of the season win, end of story. I didn’t mind the chase, but I wish nascar had simply made a 10-20 point difference for places 1-10 and 5 for everyone else.
I absolutely hated the latford system at the time and so did many other fans. The Chase for the Cup helped a little bit but it didn't prioritize anything from the regular season except consist race finishes. Since the stage racing era began in 2017, we have a good balance of regular season importance, playoff performance, wins, and of course excitement.
One of the funniest complaints I've seen with the current playoff system is that a driver could win the first 35 races, finish 2nd in the championship race and lose the championship. Technically, this could also happen with the latford system as well.
You don't know how good you've had it until it's gone. People hated the long season points format, now they want it back. But at least the playoffs format how allowed us to appreciate just how legitimate the old formats were. For a format that was supposed to be entertaining, while rewarding consistency and dominance, the playoffs managed to accomplish neither. All they had to do was give first place more points.
Jimmie is the biggest Chase merchant he would only have 2 championships in the old format, and Ben Rhodes is the worst champion in the playoffs era, was the 4th best driver in the final 4 and not even a top 10 driver during the season and has 2 championships with a whopping 6 career wins
@@NASCARFAN93100I think he’s going off average finish. Jimmie was third best in 2009 when it came to average finishes, also he was only .1 better than Kenseth on average finishes
@@NASCARFAN93100Using the original Latford system, Kenseth would have won 2006 by one point. The extra five bonus points for a race win added in 2004 gives it to Johnson. Though you can also argue that taking away the ten bonus points for wins in 2008 would give Johnson that season too, thanks to Edwards' penalty.
I used to follow the sport every single weekend under the old format because a championship was a season long thing that was very interesting to watch play out because every race mattered. Now all you have to do is tune into the last 20 laps of the last race to watch 4 guys who by chance made it to the final round.
I thought the NHRA used a "Countdown to the Championship" for years. Did they go back to a full-season points format? (I don't follow drag racing. I only know because I used to watch Ultimate23Dragon's videos, and I remember her complaining in a video about NASCAR's move to the original elimination playoff format, saying that NASCAR was taking a page from the NHRA's book.)
No he won because Gordon had more mechanical failures. Gordon had 5x the wins, more top5s and the same amount of Top-10s, just more mechanical failures 6-4 Example over a four race stretch Driver 1: 1 win, 1 P5, 1 P8 and one DNF in P38 Driver 2: 2x P7, 2x P15 Who has more points? Its driver 2, which is just laughable.
I don't care what anyone says, the points system should value finishing as high as possible. Champions rarely are crowned purely on wins, but by being consistent, and minimising their bad days.
the 2017 V8 Supercars Championship for example is, in my opinion, decided by the Bathurst 1000. Both Scott McLaughlin and Jamie Whincup had awful days there, but Jamie managed to get the better over Scott because his bad day at Bathurst still netted him 80 points, whilst Scott had a donut. likewise, Scott had a bad round at the finale, missing out on the championship because of a late race penalty after finishing on track in the exact position he needed to win the championship (P11 or something like that).
Put simply, Drivers and Teams should be incentivised to repair their cars and get back on track and finish to maximise points, as every point matters come the end of the year. It can be painful, but the team that wins the championship should be the team that did the best job at maximising their points throughout the year. The team that didn't give up, and the team that repaired their car for a P34 finish whilst the 2 retirements were their championship rivals, because that is how a championship is won.
If nascar keeps the same regular season points system they have now for an entire year with no playoffs, it would be the best points system as it rewards winning and running up front more. It would also legitimize the series to where drivers and manufacturers from around the world would want to come in and participate trust me!
Every points system will always have criticism
People are never grateful until it's gone. No one anticipates how much worse they have it now.
This is why I'm keeping track of my own points system this year. It's a marriage of Elimination Style, the Latford System, and the "Wild Card" Format used in the early "Chase for the Sprint Cup" years.
Cup Series Points Standings (Chase Format)(Current system)
1. Christopher Bell 2135
2. Kyle Larson 2129
3. Alex Bowman 2125
4. Chase Elliott 2111
5. Austin Cindric 2110
6. Ryan Blaney 2105
7. Tyler Reddick 2097
8. William Byron 2094
9. Joey Logano 2093
10. Denny Hamlin 2089
11. Daniel Suarez 2085
11. Chase Briscoe 2085
13. Ty Gibbs 2074
14. Martin Truex Jr. 2064
15. Brad Keselowski 2048
16. Harrison Burton 2031
Interesting at least that the bottom four were the four who were eliminated first round in the playoffs
Hot take: there are more "undeserving" champions then actual champions in Nascar history. This is including the latford system
Without looking at any numbers, I would think about 60-65% are unanimous, undoubted champions and 35-40% could be argued another driver was better
1997 is a great example. Mark Martin had the best average finish and he got 3rd in the championship. Bonus points for leading laps are what bit him. Mark should’ve been a 3 time champion. 1990, 1997, 2002
@@racingwithjoeAside from 1971, no season is completely unanimous. Every other year has at least one other potential champion depending on what system you use. With that being said, using my preferred method for determining who the best driver was (highest average driver rating, which obviously is unknowable for certain prior to 2005, but can be guessed to a reasonable extent based on average running position), 40 out of 75 seasons were won by the best driver.
That's a very hot take, and one I have no problem challenging.
Just remember that even the Latford System could produce a winless champion.
Yes, but it never did. It also was never meant to be an emphasis on winning unlike the Playoffs.
But it's more ironic that the playoff which was supposed to crown the winningness driver ended up crowning winless racers.
@@VGF80 Not to mention, A) there was never a winless champion under the Latford Winston Cup format, and B) the driver who won the most races on the year won the championship more often under the Latford Winston Cup format than under the Playoffs.
2021 Larson is still the best playoff championship
Well yeah, 10 wins.
Truex in 2017 is a close 2nd
The fact that Larson's 2021 season would've won him the title under any other points format is insane.
@@Kuromori-v9zNot every other system. Under 1972's system, which gave bonuses for laps completed, Denny Hamlin would have won by about 150 points. The 25 bonus points for wins added in '73 would have been enough to give it back to Larson though.
While there's no way to run the numbers thanks to NASCAR not giving out purse information, I doubt he'd win under 1974's ridiculous system either.
I'd argue for Truex' 2017 run to be better.
Here's how I would do My Points Format, were Going Back to a Full Season Points Format,
1st - 150
2nd - 125
3rd - 100
4th - 80
5th - 60
6th - 45
7th - 35
8th - 30
9th - 25
10th - 20
11th - 18
12th - 16
13th - 14
14th - 12
15th - 11
16th - 10
17th - 9
18th - 8
19th - 7
20th - 6
21st - 5
22nd - 4
23rd - 3
24th - 2
25th - 1
Note No Bonus for Leading Laps and this is an F1 Style Points Format
I have to say this there's no such thing as an undeserved champion everyone knew the rules when the season started and played by them perfectly yes is the format flawed absolutely there's things that need to be changed but I hate when people discard someone for winning the championship because it's not the Winston format guess what Bozo that is also a very flawed format every format has its flaws we just have to suck it up yes again I agree there should be changes but I just hate when people discard Championship runs like they're not impressive that any driver that wins the championship in any format is impressive they have to race their butt off and 100% just to win it which is hard to do from Blaney to Kurt Busch every single one of these drivers had to go through trials and tribulations to win their Championship under the chase/playoff format
Sorry I went on a long tangent I had to say this I really hate the people that say anyone that wins a championship on playoffs or the Chase format are undeserved it's fucking annoying as hell.
I agree for the most part and that’s why I put quotes around “illegitimate” champions. The points system itself is what is potentially illegitimate, but the champions deservingly won under that potentially illegitimate system
The wrench I like throwing into the legitimacy debate is the fact that provisionals, charters, and any form of automatic qualifying had already ruined the competition on the grounds that a car that cant even qualify on speed shouldnt be able to compete.
Look at 2003 Kenseth. 7 times he used a provisional to qualify. 3 of those he led a lap. Even if he didn do anything else those days its over 200 points he was guaranteed.
I always find it fascinating how the Wikipedia entry is used as an image quote. Greetings from the author of these tables. Great video :-)
That’s awesome you make those! Yeah, definitely the best image of the old points system I could find
@@racingwithjoe Thx. 6 years ago there was only one list for Formula 1, so I decided to make separate lists for NASCAR and IndyCar. I think I will make a similar list for the Australian SuperCars as well, as they also used a lot of different point systems.
The old system was better than what we have now
Even under a point system that rewards winning far more (for example F1 points or Indycar's), 1984 still goes to Terry Labonte, albeit narrowly. 1994 also still goes to Earnhardt quite easily.
94 if Ernie irvan doesn’t get injured at Michigan, they might have battled for the title. It’s a title my friends and I debate sometimes. Who would win if irvan doesn’t have his crash at Michigan
Am I gonna say that postseason formats are good in Nascar? Not really, but I still believe that every championship in the sports history is equally legitimate (aside from Kyle Busch in 2015). Every driver knows what the rules are, and drive with a different mindset compared to other formats. So while I do completely understand why people would think that some championships aren’t as legitimate as others, I respectfully disagree.
Really NASCAR needs to decide whether to emphasize competition or entertainment-and if it emphasizes either one the system still needs to be easy to follow. I would say that success ballast combined with a yearlong format could solve most of the sport’s problems-look at JGTC/Super GT if you want a prime example of how that leads to exciting racing, allows an endless technological arms race similar to F1 while keeping the field close (and allows for innovation that SOMETIMES trickles down to road cars), AND keeps sponsors and teams happy (basically any team that perseveres long enough will basically be guaranteed a championship-it’s just a matter of WHEN)…
Great video! Very interesting and it's cool to hear it all side by side like this.
The thing about dominance and dynasties in NASCAR (and any sport for that matter) is that there are usually all kinds of outside factors, especially regarding championships and their supposed legitimacy. For example, the 48 team of Jimmie Johnson and Chad Knaus built its strategy around the Chase for the Cup during the seasons Johnson won the championship, just like how in the pre-chase era NASCAR teams would start points-racing (driving more conservatively and settling for Top 10s due to the relative lack of points incentive to go for wins) around August or September if they had at least a one race points lead by that part of the season. Johnson and Knaus were smart enough to recognize that with the Chase, the ideal time to peak would be late October. That and Johnson almost won the championship in his rookie season (2002), which is considered THE MOST competitive season in NASCAR history (he was only done in by mechanical failures). Of course, in this example the 48 team was helped by the fact that the Johnson/Knaus pairing was the only one to remain intact from 2004 to 2010, whereas other driver/crew chief combinations that could have taken at least 10 wins and/or 1-2 championships away imploded (most notably the #12 team of Ryan Newman and Matt Borland, the #20 team of Tony Stewart and Greg Zippadeli, and the #97 team of Kurt Busch and Jimmy Fennig). This was of course also the case for Richard Petty (who frequently had a car with 100 hp more than rivals in the 60s), Dale Earnhardt (who was the first NASCAR driver who truly mastered the art of psychological warfare in racing), and Jeff Gordon (whose main POTENTIAL rivals in the late 90s either died in 1993 (Davey Allison and Alan Kulwicki), were hampered by injuries (Ernie Irvan in 1994 and Dale Earnhardt in 1996), or became owner-drivers and experienced major downturns in performance (Ricky Rudd, Bill Elliott, and Geoff Bodine)-also Gordon was younger than his main rivals by about 10-15 years and thus had greater physical fitness and stamina behind the wheel, while the #24 team was the first to truly adjust to the new meta of aerodynamics and downforce).
hes back :D
NASCAR fans are the type of fans who will get mad over a 16 seed upsetting a 1 seed in March Madness and claim the 16 seed shouldn't be there and that we need to change the system because of that.
NASCAR 👏 IS 👏 NOT 👏 STICK 👏 AND 👏 BALL
nascar is not football, or baseball, or futbol, or any regular sport. before the chase it was consistency that won championship. they did something different and it made for good tv, so your argument is dead in the water 😂
To me the whole point of racing is to win, riding around and being ‘consistent’ is meaningless. The championship should go to the driver with the most wins, and if there is a tie on win number then average finish can be the tie breaker.
No gimmicks, no formulas, just the straightforward goal of winning.
To those who always preach consistency, think of this on the micro level - does the race trophy go to the guy who lead the most laps or the guy to who leads the last lap? In the scale of an individual race, the last lap and the win is all that matters. This should be the same mindset when called out to the full season as well.
So you're telling me:
-Someone won 6 races and then had 30 LAST PLACE FINISHES.
-Someone wins 5 racess and then had 31 2nd place finishes.
You believe the 6 win driver should win the title despite having an unquestionably worse season?
@@IrishmanGFSEveryone always throws out these types of extreme theoretical examples when discussing the points formats. But in reality, as this video shows, every historical example has the contenders much closer than those theoreticals.
The debate should be either a driver with 1 win and a 10th place average finish should get the championship over a driver with 8 wins and a 13th place average finish. Cause that is the exact scenario that put us in this position with Matt Kenseth and Ryan Newman respectively. Do you really value a 3 position difference in consistency points more than 7 extra wins? Playing it safe and riding around in 6th place all day and not pushing hard to win flies in the face of everything that racing is about.
If you went back and did a theoretical and gave the championship to the most winning driver each year over the last 20 years, you wouldn’t find an ‘undeserving’ champion anywhere which is what this video and debate is all about.
I can respect your opinion if you believe otherwise, but even in your extreme example I would still give the championship to the driver with the most wins.
The reason they race is to win, in your scenario Diver 1 beat Driver 2 five times and Driver 2 beat Driver 1 six times. Second place is just the first loser as they say, and consistency points to me just rewards losing.
@@CountryMiles Let's use 2003 then. In the 36 races they faced each other in 2003. Kenseth beat Newman 22 to 14. Kenseth finished worse than 30th 3 times in the entire season. Newman finished worse than 30th *7* times.
Whats even more telling is how many times they finished worse than 20th
Newman: 11
Kenseth: 4
In essence, yes. I do value that 3 position difference. The only reason Newman was that close in av Fin was his wins. Take those out and his av finish is abysmal
@@IrishmanGFS so your argument is "well, if you make believe he didn't get the 8 Wins he had, then he wasn't as good"? RUclips needs a laugh reaction. Bad.
@@djbatchler4597 He was not as good as kenseth that year. If he was, he'd dogwalk everyone for the title. Wins are not everything in a season of 36 races.
playoff system has to go as well as stages ruins the flow and takes away from the number off laps under green you can have a caution 2 laps before a stage break and still have a caution for the stage in 2 laps the latford system was good but probably needed just some tweaks give winners more points make it significantly more to incentivize wins give out bonus points at the end of the season for different stats most wins most top 5s highest avg finishing pos ect. need to go back to less chaos not every race needs to be a game 7 moment takes away from the excitement of a natural occuring one and nascar needs to stop with the manufactured drama with phantom cautions for no reason at least be consistent with them
The latford system just proved u were the best drivers throughout all the races I don’t know why this is controversial don’t crash and you win
Disagree. It rewarded conservative consistency not a true measure of best driver or best talent.
@@frevazz3364 if you were the most consistent wouldn’t you be the best driver?
@@tracktimemedia no especially because racing has so many things out a drivers control. Mechanical failures, flat tires, getting caught in other driver’s accidents plus others.
@@frevazz3364 what would u recommend them bc the current format is arguably worse the latford system felt the most rewarding
@@tracktimemedia significantly increase points for top 5s and even more for wins. Remove the worst 7 finishes from counting in the standings for each driver (7 is 20% of the season). The old system was designed to incentivize drivers to race in every race because back in the days the stars would skip the lower purse races and just do the high purse races, thats why it rewarded good but unremarkable performance. Thats how Rusty Wallace or Jeff Gordon can win 10 races or Bill Elliott win 11 of 28 races (39% of races won) and not win the championship.
Current system is the best or near it
Ryan Blaney champion
You’re delusional
No the format that ended in 03 was best
@hunterwade9030 100%
You could win 35 out of 36 races and then blow a tire on the last lap after leading every lap of the finale and not be the champion with the playoffs. That is a joke
Under The Latford System Jeff Gordon would be The One as The 3rd Driver with 7 Championships alongside Dale Earnhardt & Richard Petty while Jimmie Johnson would only have 3 Championships. Which is still phenomenal Nevertheless.
Technically speaking, if the Latford system had always been used, Petty would only have six. He'd pick up '63, but lose '72 and '74. You could also argue that Earnhardt only won six, since Martin scored more points in 1990 without the penalty.
I was pissed when Ryan Blaney won the title, Sure he’s a decent driver, But he’s not championship caliber, Byron deserved that title.
me to he didnt deserve it did nothing to earn it one a race to make the playoffs but nothing all year
as a larson fan i was FUMING
LoGAYno is an Even More Illegitimate Champion
Ironically, Blaney was far more consistent in 2021-23 but wasn't rewarded for it.
Yeah it's way more important to be third with 3-4 to go when overtime hits and magically gets ahead of everyone with one to go
On the other series Matt Crafton won the Truck series Play Offs without winning a single race. Austin Dillon also won the Xfinity title in 2013 without a single win. Yes, I know that was pre play off format but still worth noting.
The playoff system they have now to me seems purely for ratings, not what's best for the sport. Plus, just resetting everyone for the chase or playoff is like stopping a marathon to get the top runners back together for the last mile to hash it out 😤 lol. Ruins all the hard work 1st place did to have a big lead
Fixed points was the best version. It SHOULD be all about consistency.
My idea for a new format: Divide the 36 season races into 9 blocks of 4 races each. In each block, points are awarded for stages and results in each race according to the current system. At the end of each 4-race block, the following points are awarded to the best 10 drivers (with the most points in the block):
22 - 18 - 15 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 1
Plus 2 bonus points for each race win in the block. So a driver can collect 30 points per block at maximum.
The champion is then the driver who has collected the most block points at the end of the year.
Every time they change the points system, it sucks worse.
the nascar playoffs is probably the one reason I sometimes prefer f1 to nascar
on a random weekend i will like nascar more
but when it comes to the last race I'm worried the deserving champion will not become the champion but that isn't possible in f1
I would argue, NASCAR has better driver/team competitiveness than most sports. The downside is the Championship format is ridiculous. F1 isn't as competitive, but it at least rewards the guy that dominates the season.
If NASCAR used F1 points, David Pearson would have won the 1973 championship while skipping 10 races. I do like their system better than anything NASCAR has ever had, but it's not immune to questionable champions.
@@seannolan9857 just make it so you have to run every race to win the championship
Also kyle missed a bunch of races the year he won it so i don't think its just the f1 format
The reason why I like the latford system was because it was simple. Drives get points, most points at the end of the season win, end of story.
I didn’t mind the chase, but I wish nascar had simply made a 10-20 point difference for places 1-10 and 5 for everyone else.
I absolutely hated the latford system at the time and so did many other fans. The Chase for the Cup helped a little bit but it didn't prioritize anything from the regular season except consist race finishes. Since the stage racing era began in 2017, we have a good balance of regular season importance, playoff performance, wins, and of course excitement.
One of the funniest complaints I've seen with the current playoff system is that a driver could win the first 35 races, finish 2nd in the championship race and lose the championship. Technically, this could also happen with the latford system as well.
You don't know how good you've had it until it's gone.
People hated the long season points format, now they want it back.
But at least the playoffs format how allowed us to appreciate just how legitimate the old formats were.
For a format that was supposed to be entertaining, while rewarding consistency and dominance, the playoffs managed to accomplish neither.
All they had to do was give first place more points.
Jimmie is the biggest Chase merchant he would only have 2 championships in the old format, and Ben Rhodes is the worst champion in the playoffs era, was the 4th best driver in the final 4 and not even a top 10 driver during the season and has 2 championships with a whopping 6 career wins
Ben did have the best average finish in 2021 in the truck series
Actually Jimmie would have 3 Championships (2006, 2009 & 2013) under The Old Format
@@NASCARFAN93100I think he’s going off average finish. Jimmie was third best in 2009 when it came to average finishes, also he was only .1 better than Kenseth on average finishes
@@NASCARFAN93100Using the original Latford system, Kenseth would have won 2006 by one point. The extra five bonus points for a race win added in 2004 gives it to Johnson.
Though you can also argue that taking away the ten bonus points for wins in 2008 would give Johnson that season too, thanks to Edwards' penalty.
@@seannolan9857 No, Kenseth would still Lose The 2006 Title But Only by 4 Points.
I used to follow the sport every single weekend under the old format because a championship was a season long thing that was very interesting to watch play out because every race mattered. Now all you have to do is tune into the last 20 laps of the last race to watch 4 guys who by chance made it to the final round.
No auto racing points system has ever been all that great.
I thought the NHRA used a "Countdown to the Championship" for years. Did they go back to a full-season points format? (I don't follow drag racing. I only know because I used to watch Ultimate23Dragon's videos, and I remember her complaining in a video about NASCAR's move to the original elimination playoff format, saying that NASCAR was taking a page from the NHRA's book.)
Idk about drag racing either but playoffs would absolutely work there because it’s 1 versus 1 matchups like football and basketball, etc.
Questioning Terry Labonte's championships because of his "lack of winning". Texas Terry won because of consistency, not race wins.
No he won because Gordon had more mechanical failures. Gordon had 5x the wins, more top5s and the same amount of Top-10s, just more mechanical failures 6-4
Example over a four race stretch
Driver 1: 1 win, 1 P5, 1 P8 and one DNF in P38
Driver 2: 2x P7, 2x P15
Who has more points? Its driver 2, which is just laughable.
2:28 FINALLY SOMEBODY SAYS IT