YES, CHANGE THE POINT SYSTEM
In response to comments by Jeff Gordon about the
NASCAR point system, Glen Harness authored a defense of the present point
system. It is worth examining.
A little history is in order, first, for controversy
about NASCAR’s point system has raged for several decades. One of the
first controversies came around 1968, when Bobby Isaac won only three
races and came home second to David Pearson in points. Isaac won 17 races
in 1969, more than anyone, yet finished sixth in points.
The point system was changed in 1972 following
several park-outs by independent drivers in the 1971 season. Added to the
mix were points for completed miles; the idea was that drivers had to run
all the races and the entirety of the races, to earn points. They would
cut their own throats if they parked out again as they had in 1971. But
the system backfired in 1972 and ’73. James Hylton led the 1972
points until May, and finished a strong third overall, all without a win
until the August Talladega 500. In ’73 Benny Parsons managed but one win,
with relief help at Bristol, and despite crashing hard with Johnny Barnes
at Rockingham, won the title.
The system was changed again for 1974. This time the
formula made winning a priority. Points involved basic purse winnings
multiplied by number of starts in the season divided by 1,000. The more
money won and the more starts, the more points. It worked – too well.
Richard Petty won the Daytona 500, the biggest winner’s purse of the tour,
and that factored into his point total every week. Entering September
Petty had won eight times and would add two more, but he finished out of
the top 30 at Darlington and Martinsville. Cale Yarborough, also with
eight wins entering September, won Darlington and dominated Martinsville
until blowing up late to finish 11th. But at Darlington Petty almost
outpointed race winner Yarborough and did outpoint him at Martinsville,
despite his poor finishes both times. That was because he’d won more money
than anyone else and ran the full schedule.
NASCAR knew the 1974 system could not last, and
during the August Talladega 500 that year asked statistician Robert
Latford to devise a system that rewarded running the full schedule and
also rewarded consistency of performance. The Latford system was
implemented beginning in 1975. Petty monopolized that season, but in 1976
the Winston Cup point lead changed hands eight times during the year. 1979
and 1980 were exceptionally tight point battles that came down to the
final race at Ontario. 1980 was especially close because Dale Earnhardt
nearly lost it all with a botched late pitstop under green.
Close point finishes have been the norm under the
Latford system. But the system does need changes now, because it no longer
effectively rewards performance.
The most popular recommendation is that race winners
receive more in the way of points, such as awarding 200 points for race
winners as opposed to the 175 (not factoring in the five to ten bonus
points awarded for leading) of present. Harness notes in his piece that
Jeff Gordon has more wins than anyone else this season; he speculates that
Gordon would be the point leader under a changed point system. But a look
at what such a change would do shows something else. If 200 points went to
the winner, Dale Jarrett would still hold the point lead, albeit it would
be considerably smaller – Jeff Burton would be 60 or more points closer to
Jarrett than he presently is, while Gordon would be 90 or more points
closer. The present point race would be closer and more dramatic than it
presently is.
Glen Harness is right when he notes that a point
race should not be solely about wins, and that DNFs should count. But he
misses the point – DNFs are far too punishing of a driver; DNFs hurt far
more than wins help a driver. What should change is that drivers should be
better able to overcome DNFs.
The present point system does not adequately reward
PERFORMANCE – what it does is reward the best average finish, which really
isn’t the best way to determine performance. The point system ought to be
changed.
Presented below is an alternative point system:
WINNER – 300 points
2nd – 270 points
3rd – 250
4th – 230
5th – 210
6th – 190
7th – 180
8th – 170
9th – 160
10th – 150
11th – 140
12th – 137 points, with a three-point drop per spot from there on
down.
BONUS POINTS – Points for every lap led –
Four points per lap led on road courses
Three points per lap led on 2-2.66 mile superspeedways
Two points per lap led on intermediate superspeedways (Darlington,
Charlotte, etc.)
One point per lap led on short tracks and one mile tracks
Such a system better rewards performance.
Consistency will still matter, but STRENGTH is what will matter most. Some
will object that points per lap led will lead to situations where a driver
will lead 100 or more laps, fall out, yet outpoint the entire field
because of how many laps he led. Yes, such can happen and will likely
occur, but what is more likely is that the field will not let any driver
lead too many laps in such circumstances. Moreover, such a system means
that the point race will not necessarily be clinched, and a driver can
erase a multi-hundred point gap in a race or two even if the leader
finishes in the top five.
Some argue that points for poles should be awarded.
I don’t believe such; poles mean nothing as far as the race goes, and
there is far too much effort wasted on qualifying as it is.
It is not foolish to say that a driver who wins the
most races and leads the most laps is more deserving of the title than a
driver who simply compiles the best average finish. Strength and
performance should be what point battles are about.